Prepared by:

HNTB New York Engineering

and Architecture, PC

In association with:

Clough, Harbour & Associates, LLP

Louis T. Klauder & Associates

AKRF, Inc.

Pinyon Environmental, Inc.

High Speed Rail 

Empire Corridor

Tier 1 Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement

Volume 3

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Railroad Administration

New York State 

Department of Transportation

List of Volumes Tier 1 Draft EIS 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

This Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) consists of four volumes:

Volume 1 Environmental Impact Statement, which includes:

• Executive Summary

• Chapter 1, Introduction and Purpose and Need

• Chapter 2, Existing Transportation Conditions and Major Markets

• Chapter 3, Alternatives

• Chapter 4, Social, Economic, and Environmental Considerations

• Chapter 5, Financial Capacity

• Chapter 6, Comparison of Alternatives

• Chapter 7, Comments and Coordination

• References, Acronyms, Glossary of Terms, and List of Preparers

Volume 2 Appendix A - Track Schematics, (On CD-ROM at the back of Volume 1)

Track schematic (11”x17”) plans of the Base Alternative and four Build Alternatives 

Volume 3 Appendices B through H, (On CD-ROM at the back of Volume 1)

• Appendix B Ridership and Revenue Forecasting

• Appendix C Alternatives Development and Screening Report

• Appendix D Rail Network Operations Simulation

• Appendix E Committed Highway, Bus, and Airport Improvement Projects

• Appendix F Capital, Operating, and Maintenance Costs Estimating Methodology

• Appendix G Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation

• Appendix H Draft Programmatic Agreement

Volume 4 Appendices I through J, (On CD-ROM at the back of Volume 1)

• Appendix I Agency Correspondence

o Cooperating Agencies Correspondence

o Participating Agencies Correspondence

o Section 106 Correspondence

o Agency Notification Correspondence 

• Appendix J CSXT and NYSDOT Agreements

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation 
This page intentionally left blank. 
Appendix B Ridership and Revenue Forecasting 

B
This page intentionally left blank. 
Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting Tier 1 Draft EIS 

The following report was produced in spring 2011 and describes the target travel markets and the travel 

demand and subsequent market and revenue forecasting methodologies that were used to forecast 

travel demand and fare revenues anticipated in a 2018 base and a 2035 horizon year for the Base, or No 

Action (No-Build), and six build alternatives under consideration for the Empire Corridor High Speed Rail 

Program at that time. In late 2011, an alternatives screening process was undertaken that led to the 

rejection of the 79 mph (Maximum Allowable Speed; MAS) alternatives from the program (Alternatives 

79A, B and C), and the inclusion of a Very High Speed (VHS) 125 mph MAS alternative, that would serve 

only the major markets of Albany, Syracuse, Rochester and Buffalo.

The same modeling and forecasting methodologies were applied to the 125 mph alternative as had been 

applied to the lower-speed alternatives, and the results reported in the EIS are therefore comparable in 

terms of relative ridership and travel time benefits, revenues, and costs and impacts.

The Alternatives Development and Screening Report is attached as Appendix C.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page i 

New York State Department of Transportation
This page intentionally left blank. 
Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction............................................................................................................................. B-2

1.1 Overview.......................................................................................................................................................... B-2

1.2 Program Area................................................................................................................................................... B-2

1.3 Objectives of Study.......................................................................................................................................... B-3

1.4 History of Empire Corridor HSIPR Demand Forecasting Efforts....................................................................... B-4

1.5 Market Qualities of Successful High Speed Rail............................................................................................... B-7

1.6 Empire Corridor Barriers and Strengths .......................................................................................................... B-9

1.7 Forecast Development Process ..................................................................................................................... B-10

1.7.1 Market Definition ................................................................................................................................... B-11

1.7.2 Model Inputs........................................................................................................................................... B-11

1.7.3 Model Development Methodology ........................................................................................................ B-11

1.7.4 Data Development and Implementation................................................................................................ B-14

2.0 Study Area Corridor Description.............................................................................................. B-16

2.1 Overview........................................................................................................................................................ B-16

2.2 Transportation Network ................................................................................................................................ B-16

2.2.1 Auto Network ......................................................................................................................................... B-16

2.2.2 Bus Network ........................................................................................................................................... B-17

2.2.3 Air Network............................................................................................................................................. B-18

2.2.4 Rail Network ........................................................................................................................................... B-18

3.0 Socioeconomic Conditions and Projections.............................................................................. B-19

3.1 Overview........................................................................................................................................................ B-19

3.1.1 MPO Composite Conditions................................................................................................................... B-19

3.2 Population Density Dispersion in Relation to Station Location ..................................................................... B-27

3.2.1 Buffalo-Erie Metropolitan Region........................................................................................................... B-27

3.3 Rochester Metropolitan Region .................................................................................................................... B-29

3.3.1 Syracuse Metropolitan Region ............................................................................................................... B-30

3.3.2 Utica Metropolitan Region ..................................................................................................................... B-31

3.3.3 Capital Region......................................................................................................................................... B-32

3.3.4 New York City Region ............................................................................................................................. B-33

4.0 Existing Travel Market Conditions........................................................................................... B-34

4.1 Overview........................................................................................................................................................ B-34

4.2 Total Corridor – All Markets .......................................................................................................................... B-34

4.3 Total Corridor – Major Markets..................................................................................................................... B-35

4.4 Existing Conditions: Major Markets............................................................................................................... B-35

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page iii

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting 

4.4.1 Existing Conditions: Auto........................................................................................................................ B-36

4.5 Auto Trips Data Collection ............................................................................................................................. B-40

4.5.1 Auto Trips Data Collection Limitations................................................................................................... B-40

4.5.2 Existing Conditions: Air........................................................................................................................... B-45

4.5.3 Existing Conditions: Rail.......................................................................................................................... B-48

4.5.4 Comparative Travel Characteristics: Travel Time and Cost .................................................................... B-54

5.0 Operating Plan Alternatives Studied ....................................................................................... B-61

5.1 Alternatives Set-up and Assumptions............................................................................................................ B-62

5.1.1 Study Years............................................................................................................................................. B-62

5.1.2 Differences between train schedules from 2012 to 2018 and 2035 ..................................................... B-65

6.0 Forecast Results ..................................................................................................................... B-66

6.1 Corridor-wide Ridership................................................................................................................................. B-66

6.2 Major Market Boardings................................................................................................................................ B-67

6.3 Major Market to Major Market Ridership..................................................................................................... B-70

6.4 Maximum Total Ridership Range................................................................................................................... B-81

6.5 Comparative Mode Analysis.................................................................................................................... B-81

6.5.1 Corridor wide Trips by Comparative Travel Modes................................................................................ B-84

6.5.2 Major Market Pair Analysis..................................................................................................................... B-87

7.0 Sensitivity Tests...................................................................................................................... B-89

8.0 Revenue Forecast................................................................................................................... B-91

9.0 Conclusions............................................................................................................................ B-92

9.1 Market Observations..................................................................................................................................... B-92

9.2 Empire Corridor - Key Market Characteristics Observations......................................................................... B-92

9.3 Tale of Three Corridors: Rationalizing and Positioning the Corridor with a Dual Approach ......................... B-93

9.3.1 NYC to Albany ......................................................................................................................................... B-94

9.3.2 Albany MPO to Buffalo MPO .................................................................................................................. B-95

9.3.3 NYC to Buffalo......................................................................................................................................... B-95

9.3.4 Combining Service Planning Approach with a Whole Market Approach ............................................... B-96

9.4 Further Considerations.................................................................................................................................. B-96

10.0 Appendices .......................................................................................................................... B-99

10.1 APPENDIX A: Modeling Methodology........................................................................................................ B-100

10.2 APPENDIX B: Alternative Operating and Service Plans.............................................................................. B-125

10.2.1 Complete List of Sources .................................................................................................................... B-125

10.3 APPENDIX C: Complete Competitive Mode Output Exhibits and Station to Station Matrices.................. B-132

Page iv High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting Tier 1 Draft EIS 

List of Exhibits

Exhibit B-1: Study Area .............................................................................................................................................. B-2

Exhibit B-2: Levels of Analysis.................................................................................................................................... B-3

Exhibit B-3: Previous Empire Corridor Demand Forecasting Reports........................................................................ B-4

Figure B-4: Benefits of High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail...................................................................................... B-7

Exhibit B-5: Empire Corridor Distance Between Stations......................................................................................... B-8

Figure B-6: Forecast Development Process............................................................................................................. B-10

Figure B-7: 1080 Block Zone Used for Ridership Modeling ..................................................................................... B-12

Exhibit B-8:.Empire Corridor Station, Bus and Airport Locations............................................................................ B-17

Exhibit B-9: Composite Socioeconomic Conditions of the Empire Corridor MPO's ................................................ B-20

Exhibit B-10: Projected Population Growth by County ........................................................................................... B-21

Exhibit B-11: Projected Employment Growth by County ........................................................................................ B-22

Exhibit B-12: NYMTC Socioeconomic Conditions 2009-2035 .................................................................................. B-23

Exhibit B-13: Orange County Transportation Council Socioeconomic Conditions 2009-2035 ................................ B-23

Exhibit B-14: Ulster County Transportation Council Socioeconomic Conditions 2009-2035 .................................. B-24

Exhibit B-15: Poughkeepsie-Dutchess County Transportation Council Socioeconomic Conditions 2009-2035...... B-24

Exhibit B-16: Capital District MPO Socioeconomic Conditions 2009-2035.............................................................. B-25

Exhibit B-17: Herkimer-Oneida Counties Transportation Study Socioeconomic Conditions 2009-2035 ............... B-25

Exhibit B-18: Syracuse Metropolitan Transportation Council Socioeconomic Conditions 2009-2035.................... B-26

Exhibit B-19: Genesee Transportation Council Socioeconomic Conditions 2009-2035 .......................................... B-26

Exhibit B-20: Greater Buffalo-Niagara Transportation Council Socioeconomic Conditions 2009-2035.................. B-27

Exhibit B-21: Distribution of Population.................................................................................................................. B-28

Exhibit B-22: Population Density Buffalo-Erie Region ............................................................................................. B-28

Exhibit B-23: Population Density Rochester............................................................................................................ B-29

Exhibit B-24: Population Density Syracuse .............................................................................................................. B-30

Exhibit B-25: Population Density Utica.................................................................................................................... B-31

Exhibit B-26: Population Density Capital Region ..................................................................................................... B-32

Exhibit B-27: Population Density New York City Region.......................................................................................... B-33

Exhibit B-28.............................................................................................................................................................. B-34

Exhibit B-29.............................................................................................................................................................. B-34

Exhibit B-30.............................................................................................................................................................. B-35

Exhibit B-31: 2009 Empire Corridor Total Trips for Major Market Pairs.................................................................. B-35

Exhibit B-32: 2009 Empire Corridor Auto Trips by Major Market Pairs................................................................... B-36

Exhibit B-33: AM Peak Congestion 2009 ................................................................................................................. B-37

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page v 

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting 

Exhibit B-34: Auto Market Input Variables.............................................................................................................. B-38

Exhibit B-35: Modeled Cost of Auto Trip by Major Market Pair ............................................................................. B-39

Exhibit B-36: Auto Travel Times (in minutes) by Major Market Pair....................................................................... B-40

Exhibit B-37: Empire Corridor Bus Trips by Major Market Pairs.............................................................................. B-41

Exhibit B-38: 2009 Bus Frequency - Major Carriers ................................................................................................ B-42

Exhibit B-39: 2009 Bus Haul Times by Major Markets ............................................................................................ B-43

Exhibit B-40: Existing Bus Service – Major Carriers – Major Markets Fare Structure.............................................. B-44

Exhibit B-41: Air Trips by Major Market Pairs.......................................................................................................... B-45

Exhibit B-42: Frequency of Air Service on Empire Corridor .................................................................................... B-46

Exhibit B-43: Average Air Travel Costs between Major Airports on the Empire Corridor ...................................... B-48

Exhibit B-44: Rail Trips by Major Market Pairs ........................................................................................................ B-49

Exhibit B-45: Rail Round-Trips Serving Empire Corridor Major Markets................................................................. B-49

Exhibit B-46: Daily Train Schedule: Albany-Rensselaer to Buffalo Depew .............................................................. B-50

Exhibit B-47: Daily Train Schedule: Buffalo to Albany-Rensselaer........................................................................... B-50

Exhibit B-48: Scheduled Travel Times for Major Market Pairs................................................................................ B-51

Exhibit B-49: Total Haul Times for Major Market Pairs .......................................................................................... B-52

Exhibit B-50: 2009-2010 Empire Corridor Delays.................................................................................................... B-53

Exhibit B-51: Rail Service to Major Markets - Travel Cost ....................................................................................... B-53

Exhibit B-52: Generalized Cost Input Parameters ................................................................................................... B-55

Exhibit B-53: New York City to Albany Market Generalized Cost............................................................................ B-55

Exhibit B-54: New York City to Buffalo Market Generalized Cost............................................................................ B-56

Exhibit B-55: Comparative Wait Times for Transit Modes ...................................................................................... B-57

Exhibit B-56: Travel Time and Cost for One-Way Trips from NYC ........................................................................... B-58

Exhibit B-57: Travel Time and Cost for One-Way Trip from Syracuse to Rochester................................................ B-59

Exhibit B-58: Comparative Travel Market : NYMC to Major Markets...................................................................... B-60

Exhibit B-59: Average Speeds by Alternative - NYC to Major Markets.................................................................... B-63

Exhibit B-60: Travel Time By Alternative - Albany to Other Markets ...................................................................... B-63

Exhibit B-61: Travel Time By Alternative – New York to Western Corridor Markets .............................................. B-64

Exhibit B-62: Trains Servicing Selected Stations in Forecast years 2012, 2018 and 2035 ....................................... B-65

Exhibit B-63 and Exhibit B-64: Existing and Projected Ridership............................................................................. B-66

................................................................................................................................................................................. B-66

Exhibit B-65: Percent Change in Ridership .............................................................................................................. B-67

Exhibit B-66 and Exhibit B-67: 2018 Boardings........................................................................................................ B-68

Exhibit B-68 and Exhibit B-69: 2018 - % Change in 2018 Boardings........................................................................ B-68

Exhibit B-70 and Exhibit B-71: 2035 Boardings........................................................................................................ B-68

Exhibit B-72 and Exhibit B-73: 2035 Boardings........................................................................................................ B-69

Page vi High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Exhibit B-74: Major Market to Major Market Rail Boardings.................................................................................. B-71

Exhibit B-75: 2012 Major Market to Major Market Rail Boardings......................................................................... B-72

Exhibit B-76: 2018 No-Build Major Market to Major Market Rail Boardings......................................................... B-73

Exhibit B-77: 2018 79 mph Major Market to Major Market Rail Boardings............................................................ B-74

ExhibitB-78: 2018 90 mph Major Market to Major Market Rail Boardings............................................................. B-75

Exhibit B-79: 2018 110 mph Major Market to Major Market Rail Boardings.......................................................... B-76

Exhibit B-80: 2035 No-Build Major Market to Major Market Rail Boardings.......................................................... B-77

Exhibit B-81 2035 79 mph Major Market to Major Market Rail Boardings............................................................. B-78

Exhibit B-82: 2035 90 mph Major Market to Major Market Rail Boardings............................................................ B-79

Exhibit B-83: 2035 110 mph Major Market to Major Market Rail Boardings.......................................................... B-80

Exhibit B-84: Ridership Forecast Normal Distribution Confidence Bell ................................................................... B-81

Exhibit B-85 2035 90 mph Major Market to Major Market Rail Boardings............................................................. B-83

Exhibit B-86: Market Share Changes in Air, Bus & Rail as % of Total Travel Market-2018...................................... B-84

Exhibit B-87: Market Share Changes in Air, Bus & Rail as % of Total Travel Market-2035...................................... B-84

Exhibit B-88: 2018 Changes in Mode Share for 110 mph Alternative ..................................................................... B-85

Exhibit B-89: 2018 - Market Relationship between Rail Trips and other Modes under 110 mph Alterative .......... B-86

Exhibit B-90: 2035 Changes in Mode Share for 110 mph Alternative ..................................................................... B-86

Exhibit B-91: 2035 - Market Relationship between Rail Trips and other Modes under 110 mph Alterative .......... B-86

Exhibit B-92: Trends in Travel Time and Ridership .................................................................................................. B-89

Exhibit B-93: Comparative Cost Sensitivity Tests .................................................................................................... B-90

Exhibit B-94: Revenue Forecast by Alternative and Build Year ............................................................................... B-91

Exhibit B-95: Revenue Forecast by Alternative and Build Year ............................................................................... B-91

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page vii

New York State Department of Transportation
This page intentionally left blank. 
Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Executive Summary

The Ridership and Revenue Market Forecast for Empire Corridor High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Tier 

EIS is a critical element of the Tier I Environmental Impact Statement process. The effort builds on initial 

market analysis related to the High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail initiative. This report provides a full 

discussion of the program context, the model development process, and results. Among the key 

findings are the following:

• A Total Ridership Forecast of 2.75 million for the 110 mph option in 2035 compared to 1.59 million 

under the Base (No Action) condition for the same 2035 model year. This represents a net increase 

of 1.15 million riders or a 74 percent increase in ridership over the Base (No Action) condition.

• Ridership responds to even modest increase in speeds. 

• As noted in prior presentations during the forecasting process, the bulk of forecast increases in 

demand derives from the longer trips on the corridor; those from NYC to Syracuse, Rochester and 

Buffalo. For the entire corridor, rail draws about half of its forecast growth in ridership from the air 

market and approximately 25 percent from bus and auto trips. This is a positive result and 

consistent with public policy goals of reducing VMT and regional air travel.

The detailed major market analysis reveals that major market cities on the East-West portion of the 

Empire Corridor between Albany/Rensselaer and Niagara Falls are projected to experience significant 

growth in ridership. This result is in response to adjustments in sensitivity that were made to the model 

that better represented the impact of the competitive advantage accrued from improvements to the 

Empire Corridor versus other modes. However, this should be put in the perspective of relatively 

modest ridership in the existing condition. There may be value in testing the impact of other 

operational approaches which may yield higher ridership as this corridor has a very large potential 

competitive travel market (primarily auto) from which the rail share may grow.

These results are viewed as positive from a base demand perspective and will be bolstered by further 

consideration of rail-generated economic impact and attendant induced growth, scaled transit programs 

and local transit-supportive land use policies around stations. Further, additional operational 

considerations such as express or limited express routes have the opportunity to connect some of the 

major markets with faster travel times by removing intermediate stops. It is worth evaluating whether 

such approaches can make rail more appealing to travelers who currently favor air to make longer trips 

between corridor destinations. 

These and other findings are discussed in greater detail in the report. In the Appendices to this report, 

forecast tables for any origin-destination pair or mode of travel can be found, further highlighting 

differences among the alternatives studied and their individual benefits. It must be noted that it cannot 

yet be determined which of the alternatives definitively yields the best selection relative to capital and 

operating/maintenance costs. Once this data is generated for the alternatives the Study Team will be 

better equipped to balance the benefits and equities among the alternatives.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page B-1 

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting 

1.0 Introduction 

1.1 Overview

In anticipation of implementation of Empire Corridor High Speed Rail service between New York City and 

Buffalo, this report, a component of the Tier I Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), 

provides ridership and revenue forecasts for each of the program alternatives. The ridership and 

revenue results are based on a competitive evaluation of existing travel modes (i.e., auto, bus, air, and 

rail), using various socio-economic, discretionary choice, and travel condition inputs. 

1.2 Program Area 

The program area is the 465 mile Empire Corridor running from New York City to Niagara Falls; Exhibit B1. The Corridor is often described using its two distinct geographies – the southern corridor – or EC 

South -- and the western corridor – EC West. EC South runs from New York City to Albany, while EC 

West runs from Albany to Niagara Falls.

For analysis purposes, this study looked at three different levels of geographic detail. The first analysis 

level was the entire corridor, “corridor-wide”, which includes all 17 stations that will have Empire Rail 

HSIPR service. The second analysis level was “Major Markets,” which includes the Metropolitan Planning 

Organizations (MPOs) on the corridor; each MPO is centered around one of six major cities that together 

contain 13 of the corridor’s 17 stations. This is where the majority of new rail ridership is expected to 

occur. The third level of analysis was “Major Market to Major Market,” which allows the study to show 

which market pairs that are experiencing shifts in ridership and competitive mode share based on more 

local travel characteristics. 

Exhibit B-1: Study Area

Page B-2 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Exhibit B-2 below identifies the levels of analysis described above. It explains in specific detail what 

stations or geographies are included in each analysis level.

 

Exhibit B-2: Levels of Analysis

1.3 Objectives of Study 

While New York State’s (NYS) population continues to grow, increasing demands upon the road and air 

travel networks, numerous past studies have indicated that providing a high-speed ground 

transportation system (HSGT) system in New York State can provide significant opportunity to alleviate 

congestion, reduce carbon emissions and petroleum dependence, improve air quality, and create broad 

economic opportunities from the creation of a rail-based “high skill, high-wage job base,”1

 to increased 

mobility creating greater access to jobs, the revitalization of upstate cities, and increased tourism and 

productivity. 

The purpose of this study is to perform a comprehensive market and ridership demand assessment of 

the Empire Corridor Rail Service (ECRS), with the goal of understanding projected 2035 ridership as a 

1 New York State Department of Transportation “Moving Toward the 21st Century: A proposal for High Speed Ground 

Transportation in the State of New York” 1995. 

Level 1 Analysis Level 2 Analysis Level 3 Analysis

Entire Corridor

(17 Stations)

Major Markets

(6 Markets/13 stations)

Major Market to Major 

Market Pairs (15 pairs)

New York

New York (NYC)

NYC-ALB 

Yonkers NYC-UTI

Croton-Harmon NYC-SYR

Poughkeepsie NYC-ROC

Rhinecliff-Kingston NYC-BUF

Hudson

Albany (ALB)

ALB-UTI

Albany-Rensselaer ALB-SYR

Schenectady ALB-ROC

Amsterdam ALB-BUF

Utica

Utica (UTI)

UTI-SYR

Rome UTI-ROC

Syracuse Syracuse (SYR) UTI-BUF

Rochester Rochester (ROC) SYR-ROC

Buffalo Depew

Buffalo (BUF)

SYR-BUF

Buffalo Exchange ROC-BUF

Niagara Falls

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page B-3 

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting 

function of travel time by city pair, level of service, reliability and projected fare structure. The purpose 

of these results is to translate future ridership into future gross revenue. This study seeks further to use 

these gross revenue estimates for each alternative to enable an assessment of their relative costs and 

benefits. The end product of this report is limited to specific, pre-determined service plans for future 

improved rail service and will result in a series of travel demand forecasts for these plans. This task in 

coordination with service planning, capital and environmental planning will facilitate the identification 

of an optimal rail service level that achieves the highest ridership for a level of investment (both capital 

and operating) that is attainable and sustainable. The analysis conducted within this task will result in 

ridership demand forecasting model that will be used to help develop the deliverables associated with 

other Tasks in the Tier 1 EIS, particularly Task 4: Alternatives Development and Planning and Task 7: 

Operations Planning and Simulation Modeling. 

The analyses conducted within this task will also produce base Service and Operating Plans, which will 

serve as a basis for creating infrastructure-based Service and Operating Plans for 2018 and 2035 Build 

scenarios for three different maximum speeds (79, 90 and 110 mph); using supplied service and 

operating plans through 2012, 2018 and 2035. These results will be compared against existing and 

forecasted trips in Section 6 of this report.

This report provides additional background information about the corridor as input to the travel 

demand model, including socioeconomic conditions and existing transportation conditions; as well as 

consideration and evaluation of other key market drivers that will allow for optimization of revenue and 

ridership; and presents the methodology used in obtaining, analyzing, and modeling the data. 

1.4 History of Empire Corridor HSIPR Demand Forecasting Efforts

Since 1989, public and private entities, political leaders and 

industry experts have collaboratively worked towards the goal 

of enhancing Empire Corridor passenger rail service to foster 

an improved transportation mode that would be highly 

competitive with air and auto travel. Many studies have been 

undertaken, some of which included travel demand 

forecasting. The following is a brief review of the travel 

demand forecasting studies which have been undertaken. 

Exhibit B-3 provides a graphic summary of the interrelationships of these previous Empire Corridor Demand 

Forecasting Reports. 

The first Empire Corridor High Speed Rail Study was the 

Horizons Rail Passenger Demand Forecasting Project 

commissioned by NYSDOT in 1989. Seeking a review of travel 

behavior and an assessment of the implications of various rail 

strategies in the EC West, the report identified approximately 

109 million person trips by air, auto and bus on Interstates 87 

and 90, and rail. Auto was the predominant travel mode 

(92.2%), followed by air (4.8%), bus (1.8%) and lastly, train 

(1%). Applying the then-existing mode shares to future travel 

demand, the study indicated that rail travel and revenue in the 

1989

• Horizons Rail Passenger Demand 

Forecasting Project

2000

• Intercity Passenger Rail Plan: 

Travel into the 21st Century on 

the Empire Service

2005

• Hudson Line Corridor 

Transportation Plan

2005

• New York State Senate High 

Speed Rail Task Force Action 

Program “Connecting New York’s 

Future

2009

• Strategies for a New Age: New 

York State Rail Plan

Exhibit B-3: Previous Empire 

Corridor Demand Forecasting 

Reports

Page B-4 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting Tier 1 Draft EIS 

EC West would increase by 50 percent between 1986 and 2010, , and revenue would grow from $8.3 

million to $12.6 million. The study found that providing a 10 to 40 minute time savings over current rail 

travel-time would result in 4.5 million to 11.3 million additional passenger miles by rail and $0.3 million 

to $1.3 million in additional rail system revenue. 

As Empire Corridor ridership peaked at 1.26 million in 2000, Intercity Passenger Rail Plan: Travel into the 

21st Century on the Empire Service was released in February 2000, defining NYSDOT’s Vision for High 

Speed Passenger Rail Service. The Vision Plan details specific ridership and frequency improvements; 

specifies expected public benefits; summarizes capital cost expenses and anticipated cost for each 

phase; outlines next steps; and suggests future high speed rail projects and services to meet these 

objectives. 

Building on the prior work, the Hudson Line Corridor Transportation Plan, released in 2005, provided a 

comprehensive study of the train operations and infrastructure needs for the joint users of the corridor 

(Metro North Railroad (MNR), Amtrak, CSX freight (CSX), Canadian Pacific Railway (CP), and NYSDOT) 

over a 20 year planning period. The general goals were to determine operational and system 

improvements that would provide increased capacity, flexibility and train speed as well as 

improvements in system cost effectiveness and enhanced safety.

Anticipating that Metro-North peak ridership would grow by 50 percent from 2002 to 2022, 

necessitating a 17percent increase in the number of daily trains, and combined with Amtrak desires to 

increase the number of daily trains by 88 percent by 2022, the Hudson Line Corridor Transportation Plan 

assessed current year (2002) and 2022 no-build conditions, and 2022 alternatives using rail simulation 

software. While the “no build” simulation showed insufficient infrastructure to accommodate 2022 

service needs, the alternative scenarios, based on a series of system improvements and revised 

operating plans (developed through a “charette” session with a team of rail professionals) indicated 

operating performance equal to or superior to the 2002 base scenario, while processing the projected 

greater number of trains. 

The New York State Senate Rail Task force was established in June 2005. The Task Force released the 

New York State Senate High Speed Rail Task Force Action Program Connecting New York’s Future, on 

December 23, 2005. Describing how the Empire Corridor service was once a single, unified railroad 

operation under the New York Central Railroad, the report recognized that the Empire Corridor had 

become more important than ever, as 90 percent of the NYS population was living there and the EC 

West segment provides a key route for CSX freight connections to west coast ports and the eastern 

seaboard through Chicago. Present day control of the Empire Corridor is highly fragmented, however, 

with CSX and MNR controlling the majority of the 460-mile Empire Corridor, and Amtrak, the operator of 

intercity passenger rail, controlling only 30 miles. This disaggregated ownership creates reliability 

problems as only 60 percent of Amtrak trains were arriving on time during that period, with passenger 

trains receiving the lowest priority for train dispatching by MNR and CSX. 

To improve reliability and enhance service towards a high-speed operation, the Task Force Action 

Program established short term (1-3 years) incremental service and capital improvements, as well as 

new operational and institutional arrangements. The plan also proposed a longer term phased 

implementation of a Very High Speed Rail (VHSR)/Maglev system, to be accomplished through a marketbased partnership. Given the proposed improvements, the NYC to Albany rail-trip time was estimated to 

decrease from 2 hrs 25 min to 1 hr 59 min by 2009, increasing ridership to 1.96 million passengers 

annually, based on a capital investment of $428 million. By 2015 the program was projected to reduce 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page B-5 

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting 

trip time to 1 hr 48 min, increasing ridership to 2.99 million passengers with an additional capital 

investment of $174 million. By 2025, a Maglev system would be complete, resulting in 6.71 million 

riders and no further capital investment. The Program was also anticipated to reduce the Albany-toBuffalo trip time from 5 hrs 45 min to 5 hrs by 2015 and increase ridership on that segment to 0.96 

million annually, based on a capital investment of $613 million, eventually reducing trip time to 2-3 hrs 

under a Maglev system by 2025 with 3.47 million riders, and no further capital investment. 

Federal support of passenger rail gained momentum when the Passenger Rail Investment and 

Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA) was passed on June 11. The bill reauthorized Amtrak, while tasking 

Amtrak, U.S. DOT, FRA and the states to jointly improve operations and facilities so as to enhance 

intercity passenger rail. In addition to other programs, PRIIA authorized funds to establish and 

implement a high-speed rail corridor development program, to be administered through DOT. HighSpeed Rail was defined as intercity rail passenger service that achieves operating speeds of at least 110 

miles per hour.

Concurrently, Strategies for a New Age: New York State Rail Plan 2009, the State’s first rail plan in 22 

years, set forth a framework for the management, promotion and improvement of New York’s rail 

system through 2030. While the report indicated that passenger ridership increased 23 percent

between 2007 and 2008 in the EC West segment of the Corridor, the plan recognized the need for 

setting and achieving operational goals, including 95 percent on-time performance, and reliable, faster 

and more frequent service, to make rail competitive with auto travel. The plan also detailed the “Third 

Track Initiative” to expand, enhance, and support capacity growth for intercity passenger and freight rail 

service in the EC West segment. Lastly, the plan advised that the future success of passenger and freight 

rail transportation in NY could only be achieved through the joint effort of the public and private sectors, 

and a stable and predictable funding partnership. 

There have been a series of federal actions to support HSR initiatives in response to the country’s post 

2008 economic downturn. As part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), 

passed by Congress on February 13, 2009, $8 billion was allocated to High-Speed and intercity passenger 

rail. This funding represents the first appropriation under the three new grant programs established in 

PRIIA. Following that allocation, on April 16, 2009 President Obama called for a collaborative effort 

among the Federal Government, states, railroads, and other key stakeholders, to create a national 

network of High-Speed Rail corridors.

Following the ARRA appropriations, the FRA launched the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) 

Program in June 2009. Under this program, NYSDOT submitted a grant application to FRA on October 2, 

2009, requesting $11.6 billion dollars to fund the Empire Corridor HSR program. 

On January 28, 2010, President Obama announced the first recipients selected to share the $8 billion in 

funding. New York State received $151 million, with $148 million going towards seven Empire Corridor 

projects. In addition to using this funding to advance the capital program, NYSDOT initiated a Tier 1 

Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed New York State Empire Corridor High-Speed Rail 

System. With its completion, the Empire Corridor will become eligible for additional funding under the 

HSIPR program. 

Page B-6 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting Tier 1 Draft EIS 

1.5 Market Qualities of Successful High Speed Rail

With varying distances between major markets, different maximum achievable speeds on different 

segments, and differing condition of the right-of-way,2 the potential for economic stimulus, congestion 

relief and environmental benefits of HSIPR differs for each potential market in the EC Corridor. With 

these factors in mind, the FRA HSIPR Program developed three broad definitions of high speed service:

HSR Express: Service operating in corridors 200-600 miles in length with top speed of over 150 mph on 

primarily dedicated tracks. These services are expected to be very competitive with air and auto trips in 

these markets.

HSR Regional: Service operating at a top speed of 110-150 mph on a mix of dedicated tracks and tracks 

shared with slower passenger and freight trains. 

Emerging HSR: Corridors of 100-500 miles in length with service operating at top speeds of 90 - 110 mph 

on tracks shared with freight and/or commuter services. This service is intended to build a market for 

intercity rail and is only expected to have a limited effect on passengers from other modes. The FRA is 

positioning these corridors as having potential to someday achieve high-speed service through 

incremental investments and service improvements that could build market over time. Empire Corridor 

High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail falls within this “Emerging HSR” 

category.3

The FRA selected corridors to received stimulus funding where the 

appropriate conditions existed to support strong passenger demand. A 

major grant evaluation criterion was ensuring stations are located in major 

metropolitan areas, creating sufficient travel demand to justify high speed 

service. The Empire corridor fulfills this criteria, as the most populous city 

and metropolitan statistical area (MSA) in the country, 

New York City, part of the New York-Northern New 

Jersey-Long Island and Southern New JerseyPennsylvania MSAs serves as the southern anchor of 

the Empire Corridor with over 19 million residents as of 

the 2010 US Census. Additionally, other cities with 

station locations along the route, namely Albany, Rochester, 

Utica, Syracuse and Buffalo are classified as MSA’s. 

A second condition for successful HSIPR service is 

having the appropriate distance between stops. HSIPR 

should be confined to distances between 100-500 

miles, and FRA found that stops 250 miles apart should 

receive the highest value.4

 Shorter trips are best for 

auto and commuter rail, while longer trips are best for air 

travel. While the Empire corridor from NY to Buffalo is 460 miles there are 

sixteen destinations on the route. This means Empire Corridor point-topoint distances may range from as little as 6 miles (from Buffalo-Depew to 

2 Regional Plan Association. America 2050: Where High Speed Rail Works Best. 1. September 2009. 

3 Ibid, 2. 

4 Ibid, 3.

Figure B-4: Benefits of High 

Speed Intercity Passenger 

Rail

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page B-7 

New York State Department of Transportation

HSIPR 

Fosters

Improved 

Intercity 

mobility

Revitalized 

Station Areas

Social Equity

Connections 

to key 

regional 

Destinations 

Reduced 

Highway and 

Airport 

Infrastructure 

Reduction in 

Sprawl 

 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting 

Buffalo-Exchange) to as much as 79 miles between adjacent markets, (between Syracuse and 

Rochester); See Exhibit B-5. But the overall length of 460 miles between NYC and Niagara Falls certainly 

meets the definition as FRA intended.

The third condition is locating HSIPR in metropolitan regions with existing transit systems. One of 

HSIPR’s competitive advantages over air is that passengers generally arrive in a city center from where 

riders can avail themselves of connecting regional rail, commuter rail and local transit networks. For 

travelers with both their origin and their destination in central cities, HSIPR service is convenient for 

business and non-business travelers alike if 

the service offers robust connections to 

regional transit. With its large population 

located within easy access to the regional 

transit system, New York City has optimum 

transit connections, making HSIPR a viable, 

competitive service. 5

Further, High Speed Rail should be located 

in Metropolitan Regions with strong Gross 

Domestic Product (GDP). The southern 

anchor of the Empire Corridor is part of the 

Northeast Mega-region, accounting for onefifth the nation’s GDP. Despite several of 

the EC West markets underperforming 

economically, most of the MPO’s have large 

employment markets and populations 

which, taken together, are equivalent to a 

corridor with significant GDP. HSIPR service 

that directly connects the heart of New York 

City to city centers on the EC West segment 

of the Corridor, including Buffalo, Utica, 

Rochester and Syracuse, may further 

stimulate the economy of these less 

economically robust cities. 

Competitive High Speed Rail service is also most successful when located in regions with high congestion 

levels. Under these conditions, auto drivers are more easily influenced to transfer to a transit mode if it 

is competitive with or faster or cheaper than the trip it replaces. The FRA notes that HSIPR “systems 

compete more with short-haul air travel than intercity auto trips and have the potential to decongest 

some of the nation’s most congested airports.”6 This includes all three New York metro airports, which 

have poor on-time performance rates due to both ground-side and air side congestion; see7 Section 4.5

Auto Trips Data Collection. 

Finally, the most successful high speed rail service would be located within a mega-region. When 

located in such a large and dynamic economy, HSIPR can anchor a greater HSIPR network, fostering rail 

5 Ibid, 4.

6 Ibid, 5.

7 Bureau of Transportation Statistics, http://www.bts.gov/programs/airline_information/

Exhibit B-5: Empire Corridor Distance Between 

Stations

Station Distance on 

Corridor (mi)

Distance between 

Stops (mi)

New York 0 

Yonkers 14 14

Croton-Harmon 32 18

Poughkeepsie 73 41

Rhinecliff-Kingston 88 15

Hudson 114 26

Albany-Rensselaer 141 27

Schenectady 159 18

Amsterdam 177 18

Utica 237 60

Rome 250 13

Syracuse 291 41

Rochester 370 79

Buffalo Depew 431 61

Buffalo Exchange 437 6 

Niagara Falls 460 23

Page B-8 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting Tier 1 Draft EIS 

connections between major cities. Cities within megaregions also tend to have the population, 

supportive densities and transit connections best suited to HSIPR systems.8

1.6 Empire Corridor Barriers and Strengths 

As an Emerging HSR corridor, the Empire Corridor possesses natural strengths, and appropriate 

conditions, consistent with FRA recommendations, that position it for success. The corridor’s principal 

cities, New York, Poughkeepsie, Albany, Utica, Syracuse, Rochester, and Buffalo, are well spaced for 

high-speed rail service, and are the most densely settled areas on the corridor; see Exhibit B-1. This is 

an ideal condition for gaining and sustaining increasing ridership, which in turn justifies frequent service, 

as dense population centers are more transit-oriented and would be more likely to use a reliable, wellscheduled transit service. However, this means that true success will depend not just on the 

development of HSIPR, but on the service being supported by the appropriate surrounding land use, 

development density, and local transit links.

Although the success of HSIPR depends on the appropriate population density in the station cities, many 

Empire Corridor cities have experienced a population decline over the past thirty years directly resulting

from a decline in their core centers, over the past fifty years. This decline is directly linked to the decline 

of manufacturing industries in both the US and these cities. The United States Regional Plan Association 

and Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, through their joint venture, America 2050, identified 

“Underperforming Regions,” as compared to overall national economic performance regarding 

population, employment, and wages. Underperforming geographies tend to be in agricultural and 

resource-dependent rural regions, as well as former industrial regions. This classification is typical of the 

EC West segment off the EC Corridor, and as a result, portions of this Corridor do fall into the category of 

an underperforming region.9

 America 2050 found that the largest underperforming region, in terms of 

population and economic potential, is the Great Lakes mega-region, which includes portions of the EC 

West Corridor. With a 2009 population of 54 million, this mega-region has lost more than 1.2 million

manufacturing jobs since 1990.10 By investing in infrastructure-based strategies, such as those provided 

through the ARRA and FRA’s high-speed rail initiative, the Federal Government seeks to provide a 

catalyst for positive growth and change within these regions. 

Meanwhile, land use patterns, supported by the zoning and development practices of the Post-WWII 

era, have led to highly dispersed development patterns both in urban and rural areas, further reinforcing 

auto-dependency throughout the Corridor. As Section 4.0, Existing Travel Market Conditions shows, 

over 65 percent of all trips made along the Corridor are made by auto. To support HSIPR, local and 

regional governing bodies and agencies must begin to advocate and foster denser, transit-supporting 

development patterns. Transit authorities, regional planning bodies and county planning boards must 

work together to provide transit supporting land uses around HSIPR stations as well as transit linkages 

along major corridors and between local population hubs.

As an example of decline and opportunity for urban restoration, the Buffalo/Niagara Falls metropolitan 

region, with the City of Buffalo as its major city, serves as the far western market for the Empire 

8 Ibid, 5-6.

9 Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and Regional Plan Association. America 2050 Research Seminar: Discussion Papers and 

Summary. Healdsburg, California- March 29-31, 2009.

10 Ibid, 13.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page B-9 

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting 

Corridor. This region has experienced a near 17 percent population decline between 1990 and 2008. 

Buffalo, the second largest city in New York State, comprises approximately 28 percent of the Greater 

Buffalo-Niagara Regional Transportation Council region and is expected to experience population and 

employment growth between 2012 and 2035.

Meanwhile, the metropolitan Albany region has recognized a growth in population over the past decade 

based on recent results from the 2010 US Census,

11 yet significant portions of its core metropolitan 

population has declined while other nearby sprawled suburban and rural areas have gained population – 

leaving a relatively mixed picture and relatively depopulated city center.

12 Significant density - at least 

4,000 persons per square mile in the core area – is vital for HSIPR ridership. The metropolitan 

populations lying on the suburban fringe often find it more convenient to use their private automobiles 

and are resistant to efforts to shift them from auto to rail. Still, the City of Albany is anchored by a large 

university population and the core workforce is dominated by State employees, health-care and 

education workers. This academic and business population base within the core city could benefit from 

the convenience of HSIPR, particularly as it links them with increasing ease to major education and 

health centers in New York City. Section 3 of this Task Report identifies the Capital Region as an MSA 

which is expected to experience some of the largest percentage gains in employment and population 

between 2012 and 2035 (Exhibits B-10 and B-11). The form of development to accommodate this 

expected increase in population and employment, as well as whether they are able to further develop 

supporting transit links, will have a large impact on HSIPR ridership. Dense development located near 

the HSIPR station, or located in a hub that is itself linked to the station via fast, reliable transit, will be 

critical in making HSIPR successful. The Capital District Transportation Committee’s existing Community 

and Transportation Linkage Planning Program, which aims to integrated land use and transportation 

planning, must continue to seek support from planning authorities from Albany, Rensselaer, Saratoga 

and Schenectady Counties, and the local transit authorities must continue to evaluate, develop and 

implement a transit-supporting transportation and land use vision throughout the Capital district region. 

1.7 Forecast Development Process 

The travel demand forecast development process was based on standard planning principals, evaluation 

of the required level of detail in available data, and available modeling platforms. The approach can be 

simplified to the process diagram below. The major components of this forecast development process 

are briefly discussed in the following narrative section. 

Figure B-6: Forecast Development Process

11 http://alloveralbany.com/archive/2011/03/25/capital-region-2010-census-population-totals

12 http://projects.nytimes.com/census/2010/map. See Albany Metro area for assessment of population by census block.

Define 

Corridor

Data 

Collection

Identify 

Existing 

Transport 

Market

Define Plan 

Inputs

Forecast 

Model Setup

Validate 

Model

Forecast 

Results 

Page B-10 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting Tier 1 Draft EIS 

1.7.1 Market Definition

To begin developing the forecast model, (as detailed in Exhibit B-5) it was necessary to understand the 

extent of the potential market. This was done by defining the corridor based upon the relationship of 

existing Empire Corridor Amtrak stations to the geographic region in which they are located. Station 

areas and their identified general and potential market service areas served as the basis by which to 

compare rail transit and other travel modes (auto, bus, air). This allowed for the assembly of the 

existing transportation network, and related existing and forecasted socioeconomic and transportation 

market conditions. This network became the basis through which major markets and sub-markets were 

evaluated. 

Data collection was undertaken to find the necessary information on socioeconomic and transportation 

conditions. Socioeconomic trends were analyzed to compare the forecasted change over time in 

relation to population, households and employment. Section 3.0 Socioeconomic Conditions and 

Projections details these findings. Existing competitive transportation modes were compared in relation 

to time, frequency, reliability, congestion levels and cost and are detailed in Section 4.0 Existing Travel 

Market Conditions. 

1.7.2 Model Inputs

Existing and Preliminary HSR service options, including, the schedule, speed, number of stops, fares, and 

mode choice selection criteria were defined and input into the model for 2009, the model Existing 

Conditions year. The 2009 existing conditions model was then calibrated (and its driving algorithms 

adjusted) until its outputs matched known travel behavior. The forecasted modal demand, fare price, 

socioeconomic projections, congestion level, station to station run time, frequency, dwell times, 

intermediate destinations, and induced demand was input into the model for the following years:

2012 - Projected for Base Conditions / EIS Base Year

2018 - Phase I of Rail Service Improvements Completed (79, 90 and 110 mph)

2035 - All Rail Service Improvements Completed (79, 90 and 110 mph)

The model was also configured to analyze no-build scenarios, which analyze growth in ridership based 

upon projected socio-economic changes but with no change in transportation service between 2012 and 

2018/2035. 

1.7.3 Model Development Methodology

Following the completion of data entry and calibration, preliminary model runs were performed. The 

growth and ridership for all six 2018 and 2035 scenarios (identified above under model input section and 

defined in more detail in Section 7 Sensitivity Tests) were compared against the 2012 baseline. These 

results were evaluated and service options were then refined to result in projected ridership levels. This 

section briefly describes the methodological approach to the model design, data development and 

implementation. A more complete description is presented in Appendix A: Methodology. 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page B-11

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting 

Model Design and Specification

This section describes the basic structure of the Empire Corridor intercity travel demand model. Cube 

Voyager Software, designed by Citiliabs, was used to construct the model and to provide forecast 

outputs. The model is configured to produce a forecast of zone-to-zone person-trips by mode (auto, air, 

bus, and rail). By zone, this report means census block. The zones as shown in Exhibit B-7 include all 

1040 census blocks for the State of New York and 40 external census blocks outside of the state. This 

means that the model evaluates travel between all of these blocks. The capture of rail transit users 

from this matrix is based on mode selection parameters that consider travel time, cost, level of service, 

and other factors – and weights the gravity of the train station to transfer from one mode to another 

based on availability of other modes 

and their relationship to the zone pair 

considered. 

Furthermore, a design goal of the 

model is to minimize the number of 

parameters requiring calibration, 

instead making maximum use of the 

observed trip movement data. (This

study effort is not intended to collect 

or include conventional household or 

personal survey data, as explained 

further in the next section). Finally, 

the model structure is intended to be 

scalable, so that the initial corridor 

model needed for rail ridership 

forecasting can be expanded in scope 

and detail to eventually become a 

statewide intercity travel demand model.

An initial "pivot" model structure was adapted previously to meet the needs of this program while 

taking into consideration the other constraints and goals identified above. The pivot model includes the 

four steps of a conventional Urban Transportation Planning System (UTPS) style model: trip generation, 

distribution, mode split, and assignment. However in this “pivot” structure each of these steps is 

formulated incrementally.

In relation to other models surveyed,

13 the structure of this model is similar to that reported in the 

Thailand high-speed rail feasibility study, while incorporating aspects of the California HSR model and 

prior New York models. It is important to note that, in addition to being formulated incrementally, the 

process described above reverses the conventional order of the four steps in the UTPS model, in order 

to pass information between the steps in an integrated manner.

The mode split and trip distribution steps are incremental multinomial logit models connected using 

composite impedance terms. Together these combined models forecast the counterfactual number of 

person-trips that would travel between each zone pair by mode if generalized travel costs changed, 

without altering the magnitude of trip ends.

13 See Appendix A

Figure B-7: 1080 Block Zone Used for Ridership Modeling

Page B-12 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting Tier 1 Draft EIS 

In practice, the unobserved characteristics of non–auto modes are correlated, creating unique 

competition patterns between the highway mode and other modes. The model requires a highway 

network plus a set of multi-modal public transit lines representing non-auto modes of travel. Zone-tozone highway generalized costs are extracted by using the Cube Voyager HIGHWAY program to 

construct minimum-time network paths from origin to destination and tracing (or "skimming") the time, 

distance, and toll cost associated with each origin-destination pair.

For the Empire Corridor study, highway network congestion was estimated by calibrating a statewide 

vehicle-trip matrix from Highway Performance Monitoring System14 (HPMS) counts using maximum 

likelihood origin-destination matrix estimation techniques, and then assigning this matrix to the highway 

network using an iterative user equilibrium algorithm. For future years, the vehicle-trip matrix is 

factored to reflect growth in total vehicle-trip ends, based upon changes in socio-economic zonal 

variables. The vehicle traffic growth factor is computed as the ratio of future to base population plus 

two times employment in each zone, a widely used heuristic when more detailed trip generation 

parameters are not known. These growth factors are then used to compute row and column matrix 

margin targets for an iterative proportional fitting algorithm implemented using the Cube Voyager 

FRATAR module to develop a future year vehicle trip matrix.

Similarly, growth factors are computed for intercity person-trips as well, based upon the change in 

socio-economic zonal variables. However, in this growth factor calculation, employment is weighted 

based upon the assumed percentage of business travel (identified from Bureau of Transportation 

Statistics). These growth factors are applied to the forecast person-trip table created after applying the 

destination shifts indicated by the incremental logit model. Lastly, the shifted mode share percentages 

calculated using the hierarchical logit mode choice model are applied to derive future year intercity 

travel by mode.

The "pivot" model described above has only a handful of calibrated parameters, most of which are 

directly transferrable from other studies or may be asserted based upon conventional industry 

standards. It is also scalable, working essentially the same way regardless of zone system or network 

size, and accommodating expansion of detail in future revisions. The counterpoint to this simplicity and 

scalability is that the model is heavily dependent upon the input base travel matrices-if no travel is 

observed between two zones by a certain mode in the base scenario, none will be predicted in the 

future scenario. Thus, although appropriate for analysis of the proposed upgrades to the existing 

Empire Corridor, the pivot model structure would be inappropriate for analysis of a new location rail 

corridor or extension of rail service into a presently un-served area. Furthermore, in practice, it is 

impossible to observe trips by mode from their "true" origin to their "true" destination; rather the data 

in this study included observed ridership from station to station and similar part-trip data for other 

modes (i.e. interchange to interchange, airport to airport, and terminal to terminal). Thus most of the 

effort involved in calibrating the pivot model was dedicated to estimating the true origin and destination 

zone for these observed partial trips. 

14 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohpi/hpms/abouthpms.cfm

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page B-13

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting 

1.7.4 Data Development and Implementation

The modeling approach for this study was structured to make maximum use of available databases. To 

help quantify the existing shares of travel by the various modes in the corridor, the following existing 

data sources were used: 

Annual 2009 Amtrak boardings and alightings by station

• Annual 2009 Thruway trips by interchange pair

• Annual 2009 air travel (passengers) between major NY airports

• Bus trips between major NY cities in 2009

• Various ESRI GIS format data was also compiled from public sources, including:

o National Highway Planning Network (NHPN) roadway centerline shapefiles, with attributes 

describing the functional classification, number of lanes, and Annual

o Average Daily Traffic (AADT) of major roadways included in the Highway Performance 

Monitoring System (HPMS)

o Locations of interchanges and toll plazas on the New York State Thruway

o Polyline data representing the Amtrak rail network and point data representing actively 

used and proposed station locations

o Polyline data representing intercity bus routes and point data representing the current bus 

station locations

o Point data representing the locations of major airports in New York City, Albany, Syracuse, 

Rochester, and Buffalo

o Census polygon area (e.g. county, subdivision, tract, block) boundaries

o New York area transit information imported from Google Transit Feed format

• In addition, socio-economic data were compiled from the following sources:

o Block-level demographics from the decennial U.S. Census 2000 files

o Block-level employment estimates at places of work from the Longitudinal

o Employer-Household Dynamics "OnTheMap" synthetic micro-data

Given the scope of the rail ridership forecast effort, to directly estimate parameters for trip generation, 

distribution, and mode split models, it was necessary to maximize use of the available data while 

requiring minimal estimation and calibration of new model parameters. Therefore an incremental or 

"pivot modeling" approach based upon insights from a literature review (discussed further in Appendix 

A) was utilized.

A base "background travel" vehicle-trip matrix was directly estimated using “Cube Analyst” (A Citilabs 

software plug-in to Cube) from observed AADT reported in the NHPN network based upon HPMS 

databases. A capacity-constrained iterative assignment was performed to estimate congested base 

generalized travel costs between Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) throughout the state.

Page B-14 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting Tier 1 Draft EIS 

The base travel information by mode (auto, bus, rail, air) was disaggregated to the TAZ system, which is 

based directly upon Census geography, using County subdivisions as the target scale for intercity travel 

analysis.

To develop future year no-build forecasts, the networks remain the same, and:

• Growth in total trip productions and attractions is assessed using a standard FRATAR process 

incorporating socio-economic growth factors derived from Woods and Poole projections.

• After factoring to reflect growth, the "background travel" matrix is assigned to estimate the level of 

increase in highway travel costs due to congestion.

• Mode shift from auto to other modes is calculated based upon applying a nested multinomial logit

model implemented using an incremental formulation. The nest separates auto from the other 

modes, providing a means of controlling the overall level of diversion and addressing the IIA 

concerns that initially precluded use of multinomial logit in the 1977 Buffalo-NYC rail ridership study. 

This nesting structure is also generally consistent with that used in the California statewide HSR 

forecasting model, as well as the Amtrak Northeast Corridor Model.

• Shifts in destination choice due to changing travel costs between zones may also be calculated by 

applying a multinomial logit model formulated incrementally, based upon changes in composite cost 

from mode split. The destination shift model may be turned off, if desired.

• Future year build forecasts are produced in the same manner, with the addition of rail networks 

coded based upon project assumptions, including service frequency and schedule information 

A complete report on methodology is provided in Appendix A: Demand Management Model 

Methodology. 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page B-15

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting 

2.0 Study Area Corridor Description

2.1 Overview

The 463 mile long Empire Corridor spans from the distance between New York City and Niagara Falls, 

and serves New York’s major urban areas and markets, specifically New York City, the Mid-Hudson 

Region, Albany-Renesselaer, Schenectady, Utica, Rome, Syracuse, Rochester, and Buffalo-Niagara Falls. 

As shown in Exhibit B-8: Study Corridor Major Markets, the state’s most populous cities and largest 

metropolitan areas are located along the corridor. The counties along this route account for 

approximately 85 percent of the state’s total population and approximately 90 percent of the state’s 

total employment.15

2.2 Transportation Network

The cities along this corridor are also serviced by four primary modes of transportation, specifically auto, 

bus (Megabus, Coach USA, Greyhound, and Adirondack Trailways), direct air service (US Air and JetBlue), 

and rail (Amtrak and New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) Metro North Railway

(MNR)). The following is a full description of each mode within the network. See Exhibit B-8 for the 

relationship of rail stations, bus and airport locations.

2.2.1 Auto Network

The primary vehicular corridor running along the Empire Corridor can be broken down into three major 

segments, all part of the New York State Thruway: Interstate 87 North from New York City to Albany 

(approximately 160 miles), Interstate 90 West from Albany to Buffalo (approximately 293 miles) and 

Interstate 190 from Buffalo to Niagara Falls (approximately 21 miles). These three segments are 

primarily two lane highways (in each direction) with some three-lane segments in some of the urban 

areas. All of these segments are part of the 570 mile long system of limited access highways located 

within the State of New York and operated by the New York State Thruway Authority. 

The Thruway segment from the New York City line at Yonkers through Buffalo is a tolled road. The 

tolling is accomplished through a ticketed system where both an EZ Pass transaction occurs as one 

enters and exits from the Thruway or a ticket is given and collected at the entry and exit points. The 

availability of this toll data facilitates the analysis of travel patterns and the building of a dependable 

origin and destination database. 

15 Woods and Poole 2009.

Page B-16 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting Tier 1 Draft EIS 

2.2.2 Bus Network 

Nonstop bus service exists between all the major cities along the corridor, and is provided by three 

major carriers: Adirondack Trailways (which also includes Pine Hill Trailways and New York Trailways), 

Greyhound and Mega Bus. Adirondack Trailways is the predominant carrier followed by Greyhound. 

Exhibit B-8, provides the location of the major bus stations serving major markets/MPO’s along the 

Corridor.

Exhibit B-8:.Empire Corridor Station, Bus and Airport Locations

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page B-17

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting 

2.2.3 Air Network

This corridor is served by ten commercial service airports from Niagara Falls to Newark. Specifically 

these include: Niagara Falls International, Buffalo-Niagara International, Greater Rochester 

International, Syracuse-Hancock International, Albany International, Stewart International, Westchester 

County, LaGuardia, John F Kennedy International, and Newark Liberty International. Although Newark 

Liberty International is outside New York State, it serves a significant segment of the New York 

metropolitan population and has significantly high numbers of passengers traveling to or from upstate 

cities such as Albany, Buffalo, Rochester and Syracuse. With relatively quick access from New York City 

via NJ Transit and Air Train, air passengers using the Newark Liberty International are assumed to be a 

part of the potential market for high speed rail service. If high speed rail does prove to be competitive 

with air travel, there is a high likelihood of a shift in some riders preferred mode of travel from Newark 

Liberty International to upstate destinations over to Empire Corridor HSR service for those trips. 

2.2.4 Rail Network

The Empire Corridor Rail line (Empire Corridor) runs parallel to the vehicular New York State Thruway 

Corridor. This corridor, like the road network, consists of two discreet sections- New York City to Albany 

and Albany to Buffalo. Amtrak provides intercity service between New York Penn Station and Niagara 

Falls, NY, with stops in Yonkers, Croton-Harmon, Poughkeepsie, Rhinecliff-Kingston, Hudson (connection 

to Lake Shore Limited to Boston), Albany-Rensselaer, Schenectady (Adirondack and Ethan Allen Express 

to Montreal, Canada and Rutland, VT), Amsterdam, Utica, Rome, Syracuse, Rochester, Buffalo-Depew, 

and Buffalo Exchange. Metropolitan Transportation Authority Metro North Railroad commuter service 

also runs along this corridor, from NYC to Poughkeepsie. 

Page B-18 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting Tier 1 Draft EIS 

3.0 Socioeconomic Conditions and Projections

3.1 Overview 

Travel characteristics in any area are strongly influenced by socio-economic conditions, principally 

population, households and employment. There is a direct correlation between these three factors and 

regional travel characteristics with the foundational premise of larger numbers of people, households 

and jobs will result in more trips. While there are many other socioeconomic factors to consider for the 

Tier 1 EIS, for the purposes of the demand management model, these are the three primary factors; 

therefore this section analyzes trend lines from 2009 through 2035 for population, households and 

employment for each of the major population centers along the Empire Corridor. Each of the 17 Empire 

Corridor stations is located in one of the nine metropolitan statistical areas (MSA’s) located along the 

Empire Corridor. Metropolitan Statistical areas, as defined by the United State Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB), include at least one city with 50,000 or more inhabitants, or an urbanized area (of at 

least 50,000 inhabitants), and a total metropolitan population of at least 100,000. Each MSA has its own 

metropolitan planning organization as decreed by federal law. Since the ridership will primarily be 

drawn from these nine metropolitan areas, this travel demand forecasting study used the MPO unit as 

the basis for socioeconomic measurement. The following is a review of socioeconomic conditions both 

individually and compositely within each of the nine MPO’s. 

3.1.1 MPO Composite Conditions

Based on Woods and Poole16 analysis, the nine MPOs have a total 2009 population of 16,522,063, or 85

percent of the entire 2009 NYS population of 19,541,453. By 2035, the population of these nine MPOs is 

expected to increase 12 percent, to 18,423,566, while the population of the entire state is expected to 

increase by 11 percent to 21,643,032, keeping these nine MPOs at 85 percent of the entire 2035 

projected NYS population. 

As of 2009, the nine MPOs along the corridor encompassed 90 percent of New York State’s entire 

employment base, or 9,866,842 of the State’s 10,950,869 employed population. The MPOs’ 

employment is expected to increase, 22 percent by 2035 to 12,011,541, thereby continuing to constitute 

90 percent of the State’s total 2035 projected employment of 13,286,923. 

16 Woods & Poole Woods & Poole Economics, Inc. is an independent firm that specializes in long-term county economic 

and demographic projections. County projections are updated annually and utilize county models that take into account 

specific local conditions based on historical data from 1969 to 2008 (1969 to 2009 for population); all data from 2009 to 

2040 (2010 to 2040 for population) is projected. One key aspect of Woods & Poole projections is that the economies of 

counties are linked together: projected economic conditions in one county are reflected in the projected economic 

conditions in other counties. County population growth is a function of both projected natural increase and migration due 

to economic conditions. http://www.woodsandpoole.com/

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page B-19

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting 

Exhibit B-9: Composite Socioeconomic Conditions of the Empire Corridor MPO's

The 9 MPOs also comprised 88 percent of the state’s households, or 6,617,257 of 7,471,503 total 

households in 2009. By 2035, it is projected that the nine MPOs will consist of 7,307986 households 

(11% growth), thereby maintaining a fairly consistent proportion of the State’s total household 

population (8,208,957) at 89 percent. See Exhibit B-9.

As seen in Exhibits B-11 – B-16, as a whole the southern corridor will continue to experience increases in

population, employment and households anchored by New York City, while the western portion of the 

corridor from Albany to Niagara Falls, as shown in Exhibits B-16-B-20, will continue to feel the effects of 

a static or slowly declining population. These projected figures do not take into account any changes in 

public policy and infrastructure investments, such as HSIPR, which can potentially change the population 

and employment outlook for the western corridor.

Employment, as shown in Exhibit B-11, will increase the most both percentage-wise and in actual gains 

along the southern corridor. The greatest percentage gains will be in Orange and Putnam counties, as 

these counties are located on the fringe of the most populous region New York Metropolitan 

Transportation Council region (NYMTC). In contrast, counties along the corridor such as Wyoming, 

Genesee, Onondaga, Oneida, Herkimer, Montgomery, and Albany are expected to experience slight 

declines in population. All counties are expected to see an increase in employment with Oneida County 

expecting the biggest percent increase, despite its small population decline. The employment, 

population, as well as household growth projections are presented in further detail within this section. 

0

5,000,000

10,000,000

15,000,000

20,000,000

2009 2012 2018 2035

Total Population

Total Employment

Total Households

Page B-20 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Exhibit B-10: Projected Population Growth by County

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page B-21

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting 

Exhibit B-11: Projected Employment Growth by County

Page B-22 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting Tier 1 Draft EIS 

New York Metropolitan Transportation Council 

The New York Metropolitan Transportation Council (NYMTC) is the largest metropolitan statistical area 

(MSA) in not only New York, but in the United States. NYMTC is a ten County Region with a 2009 

population of 12,623,185. As shown in Exhibit B-12, the NYMTC region population is expected to 

increase 13 percent by 2035, bringing the population to 14,291,537, and households are expected to 

similarly increase by 12 percent from 4,729,433 to 5,291,248. The regional employment is projected to 

increase by 21 percent over the same time frame from 7,090,526 to 8,595,125. 

Exhibit B-12: NYMTC Socioeconomic Conditions 2009-2035

Orange County Transportation Council OCTC

Adjacent to the northwest corner of the NYMTC region, Orange County is one of the fastest growing 

counties in the State, as exhibited by all three socioeconomic factors in this study and shown in Exhibit

B-13. From 2009 to 2035, population is expected to increase by 34 percent, from 383,532 to 512,458; 

households by 37 percent, from 133,754 to 182,683; and employment by 32 percent from 179,629 to 

237,400. 

Exhibit B-13: Orange County Transportation Council Socioeconomic Conditions 2009-2035

0

5,000,000

10,000,000

15,000,000

2009 2012 2018 2035

Total Population

Total Employment

Total Households

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

2009 2012 2018 2035

Total Population

Total Employment

Total Households

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page B-23

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting 

Ulster County Transportation Council (UCTC)

As is typical of the southern Empire Corridor, the UCTC region has positive growth in all three 

socioeconomic areas throughout the study time frame of 2009 to 2035. Population is expected to

increase by 21 percent from 181,440 to 218,775; households by 17 percent from 70,722 to 82,469; and 

employment 30 percent from 86,783 to 112,913. 

Exhibit B-14: Ulster County Transportation Council Socioeconomic Conditions 2009-2035

Poughkeepsie-Dutchess County Transportation Council (PDCTC) 

Bordering the northeast edge of the NYMTC region, PDCTC, as shown in Exhibit B-15, is anticipated to 

see a 22 percent growth in population from 293,562 to 358,964; a 26 percent increase in households 

from 107,892 to 136,059; and a 27 percent increase in employment from 151,379 to 192,940 from 2009 

– 2035. 

Exhibit B-15: Poughkeepsie-Dutchess County Transportation Council Socioeconomic Conditions 

2009-2035

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

2009 2012 2018 2035

Total Population

Total Employment

Total Households

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

2009 2012 2018 2035

Total Population

Total Employment

Total Households

Page B-24 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Capital District Transportation Committee 

This Capital District region marks the turning point between the Western and Southern Empire 

Corridors, and its employment characteristics are indicative of its varied nature. As the State Capital, 

this regions workforce is characterized by a high number of state employees, but also maintains a strong 

manufacturing and agricultural population. As shown in Exhibit B-16, total population and employment 

is forecasted to increase from 2018 through 2035. 

Exhibit B-16: Capital District MPO Socioeconomic Conditions 2009-2035

Herkimer-Oneida Counties Transportation Study (HOCTS)

As the first MPO west of Albany, this region, typical of the western corridor, is expected to experience a 

continued slow population decline. The 2009 population was 293,280 and the projected 2035 

population 284,730, a change of 3 percent. Households are also expected to decline by 3 percent from 

116,895 to 113,224. Conversely, as shown in Exhibit B-17, total employment is expected to increase by 

33 percent which indicates the potential for a positive increase in travel demand despite the declining 

population. 

Exhibit B-17: Herkimer-Oneida Counties Transportation Study Socioeconomic Conditions 2009-

2035

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

2009 2012 2018 2035

Total Population

Total Employment

Total Households

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

2009 2012 2018 2035

Total Population

Total Employment

Total Households

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page B-25

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting 

Syracuse Metropolitan Transportation Council (SMTC) 

The SMTC region is experiencing a slowly declining population, and a shift away from the city core to 

suburban/rural areas. As shown in Exhibit B-18 the region had a 2009 population of 454,753 which is 

expected to experience a slight 1 percent decline to 450,453 by 2035, as are households from 184,872 

to 183,456 in the same period. Like much of the western corridor, this region is expected to experience 

a large, 20 percent, increase in the employment base, from 302,466 in 2009 to 362,124 in 2035. 

Exhibit B-18: Syracuse Metropolitan Transportation Council Socioeconomic Conditions 2009-2035

Genesee Transportation Council (GTC)

Despite being home to Rochester, the second largest city in New York State, the GTC region is 

anticipated to have slight 1 percent population and household decline over the 26 year period of 2009 

to 2035, from 733,703 to 740,769 and 293,220 to 290,808, respectively as shown in Exhibit B-19. 

Employment projections are consistent with the projected western corridor trend as a whole, increasing 

27 percent from 470,600 to 596,481. 

Exhibit B-19: Genesee Transportation Council Socioeconomic Conditions 2009-2035

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

2009 2012 2018 2035

Total Population

Total Employment

Total Households

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

2009 2012 2018 2035

Total Population

Total Employment

Total Households

Page B-26 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Greater Buffalo-Niagara Transportation Council (GBNTC)

Although the GBNTC region has been experiencing a major population decline over the past two 

decades, this trend is expected to change, with a slight (.01%) projected population and household 

increase of 1,123,804 to 1,128,588 and 463,671 to 465,259, respectively from 2009-2035 as shown in 

Exhibit B-20. Employment is also expected to increase by 15 percent over the same time frame. 

Exhibit B-20: Greater Buffalo-Niagara Transportation Council Socioeconomic Conditions 2009-

2035

3.2 Population Density Dispersion in Relation to Station Location

Population density is a critical factor in the success of public transit. Over 4,000 people per square mile 

(sq.mi) are considered transit supportive.

17 The density of Empire Corridor cities should be considered in 

planning for the corridor. As presented in Exhibit B-21, within each region, the population is most 

heavily distributed around each of the urban areas, as compared to the non-urbanized and rural areas of 

the State. The population density for each of the major markets is reviewed in the following section. 

3.2.1 Buffalo-Erie Metropolitan Region

The Buffalo-Erie Metropolitan region consists of three station locations. With a population density of 

1,583 p/sq. mi. within a 5 mi radius, and 740 p/sq. mi. within a 10 mile radius, Niagara Falls Station is 

currently not in a high-density area, nor is it well connected to the central business district (CBD) and 

tourism locations of Niagara Falls. Buffalo Exchange has a population density of 1,493 p/sq. mi. and 

14,692 p/sq. mi., using a 5 and 10 mile radius, respectively. The low 5 mile radius density is due to its 

location on the waterfront, therefore the 10 mile radius is a better indicator of density in this instance. 

This station is well connected to other modes of public transit, located in a dense area and is near the 

heart of the CBD. Buffalo Depew has a 5 mile radius population density of 9,425 p/sq. mi. but a 10 mile 

radius population density of only 747 p/sq. mi. This station is located on the boundary of the lower 

density suburban market and also lacks strong transit connections. Exhibit B-22 details the Station 

locations and the population dispersion for these three station locations. 

17 Federal Transit Administration: Guidelines and Standards for Assessing Transit Supportive Land Use, May 2004

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2009 2012 2018 2035

Total Population

Total Employment

Total Households

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page B-27

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting 

Exhibit B-21: Distribution of Population

Exhibit B-22: Population Density Buffalo-Erie Region

Page B-28 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting Tier 1 Draft EIS 

3.3 Rochester Metropolitan Region 

As shown in Exhibit B-23, Rochester station has a density of 8,255 p/sq. mi., which is highly transit 

supportive. The station is also well-located in the densest portion of downtown Rochester near 

educational, tourist, institutional and business land uses and attractions. 

Exhibit B-23: Population Density Rochester

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page B-29

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting 

3.3.1 Syracuse Metropolitan Region 

Located on the urban fringe, and with a population density of 3,551 p/sq. mi., the Syracuse station as 

shown in Exhibit B-24, lacks the necessary density to be fully transit supportive. In general, the Syracuse 

urban area is much dispersed, and has extremely low-density land uses immediately surrounding the 

station. 

Exhibit B-24: Population Density Syracuse

Page B-30 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting Tier 1 Draft EIS 

3.3.2 Utica Metropolitan Region 

With a 5 mile population density of 1,241 p/sq. mi. and a 10 mile density of 455 p/sq. mi., the Utica 

station, as shown in Exhibit B-25, lacks the strong density required for successful transit. While the 

station has opportunities to attract ridership, as it is located in the central business district, near tourist, 

institutional and business attractions, it also lacks the transit connections to easily bring riders from 

other parts of the city. Rome Station is located in a low-density area, only 78 p/sq. mi. with a five-mile 

radius and 314 p/sq. mi. within 10 miles. Rome station is far from the central business district and 

supportive land uses. Additionally, there are no local transit connections between the station and 

downtown Rome.

Exhibit B-25: Population Density Utica

Source of Data: US Census 2000

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page B-31

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting 

3.3.3 Capital Region

The Capital Region is home to three stations as shown in Exhibit B-26. Schenectady is the only station in 

this region located within its city’s central business district. Although the station location is in the heart 

of the CBD, its surrounding population density is only 1,723 p/sq. mi. within a 5 mile radius. The area 

around Albany station significantly lacks transit supportive density, with a population of 1,924 p/sq. mi. 

The station is also located on the fringe of the City, but has local bus connections to the by transit to the 

greater region. Similarly, Saratoga station is not located in the Saratoga Springs CBD, and has a low 

density, 563 p/sq. mi., within a 5 mile radius. Bus service links the station to the CBD.

Exhibit B-26: Population Density Capital Region

Source of Data: US Census 2000

Page B-32 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting Tier 1 Draft EIS 

3.3.4 New York City Region

The NYC or NYMTC MPO region consists of three stations each with highly different densities that are a 

by-product of the very different context of each station. NY Penn station has a population density 

perhaps like no other train station with over 43,000 p/sq. mi within 5 miles and 23,500 p/sq. mi within 

10 miles, while Yonkers, an inner-ring suburb of NYC has a density of just under 10,000 p/sq. mi within 5 

miles and 7,734 p/sq. mi within 10 miles. Croton Harmon, by contrast is a true suburban station with 

under 750 p/sq. mi within 5 miles and an actually increase in density in a 10 mile radius – at 1050 p/sq.. 

Each station serves an important and differing purpose – NY Penn Station is the mega-station that draws 

in riders regionally and locally - its density and destination oriented location drives the Empire Corridor, 

Yonkers connects the high density inner-ring suburbs to the Empire Corridor – allowing patrons to 

access Amtrak without having to head into NYC. Croton Harmon serves a similar purpose as Yonkers 

except it is a catchment area for a larger region of outer-ring rural and small town markets – much as it 

is for MTA-Metro North. Although Croton Harmon does not have transit supportive density – it is 

strategically located to capture the more dispersed exurban market that would otherwise bypass rail as 

a travel option and drive to destinations on the Empire Corridor.

Exhibit B-27: Population Density New York City Region

Source of Data: US Census 2000

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page B-33

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting 

4.0 Existing Travel Market Conditions

4.1 Overview 

The Empire Corridor can be distinctly split up into 

two discreet sections, New York City (NYC) to 

Albany, referred to as the “southern corridor,” and 

Albany to Buffalo, referred to as the “western 

corridor.” The following section describes the 

overall corridor or overall potential market – which 

includes the entire area of the NYS Thruway and all 

Amtrak Stations along the Empire Corridor. 

Due to the complexity and extent of data produced 

for the 17 individual station markets and 15 paired 

markets, this substantive forecast and comparative 

mode evaluations focuses on what are referred to 

as major markets. Further, the section evaluates 

the collective travel modes present in what are identified as major markets along the Empire Corridor. 

Major market areas are defined by MPO geographies in the region. Only those station areas subject to 

significant changes in travel speed, service, and reliability were included in the major markets corridor 

summary. 

4.2 Total Corridor – All Markets

When considering the entire corridor, as shown in 

Exhibit B-28, composed of all of the origin and 

destination pairs present on the travel corridor - 

accessible by train or an alternative travel mode, 

there is a total single passenger – one way trip 

market of 219,280,865. The vast majority of this 

market is served by automobile. This is the total 

market in which rail competes and from which an 

improved Empire Corridor rail service will draw 

additional passengers. Bus and air followed behind 

auto with 4.6 and 2.4 million trips, respectively. 

Rail ridership had the lowest market share of trips. 

Ridership peaked in 2000 at over 1.26 million, but 

hit a low point of 1.04 million riders in 2002. This decline can be attributed to the introduction of 

JetBlue air service from Buffalo in 2001. Since that time, ridership has increased from 1.08 million riders 

in 2003 to 1.14 million riders in 2004, up to 1.3 million riders in 2009. Most significantly, intercity 

passenger rail ridership increased 23 percent between Albany-Rensselaer and Niagara Falls from 2007 - 

2008. 

Exhibit B-28

Mode Trips 

(single person) Share

Car 210,977,488 96.21%

Rail 1,298,706 0.59%

Bus 4,593,637 2.09%

Air 2,411,033 1.10%

Total 219,280,865 100.00%

Source: Adirondack Trailways, Amtrak, Bureau of 

Transportation Statistics, Greyhound, Megabus, NYSDOT, 

New York State Thruway Authority.

Exhibit B-29

Mode Single Trips Share

Car 28,973,177 79%

Air 2,337,801 6%

Bus 4,591,544 12%

Rail 932,801 3%

Total 36,835,323 100%

Source: Adirondack Trailways, Amtrak, Bureau of 

Transportation Statistics, Greyhound, Megabus, NYSDOT, 

New York State Thruway Authority.

Page B-34 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting Tier 1 Draft EIS 

4.3 Total Corridor – Major Markets

Six cities along the corridor, New York City, Albany, Utica, Syracuse, Rochester and Buffalo will provide 

the major market for Empire Corridor HSIPR 

service. Each one of these markets travel 

mode catchment area has been assigned to 

its MPO geography for evaluation purposes. 

All corridor level data that was collected was 

eventually broken down to city pair level, for 

a total of 15 city pairs (i.e., New York to 

Albany, New York to Utica, Albany to Utica, 

Albany to Rochester) to establish this 

relationship between the cities and have an 

understanding of the dynamics between the 

city pairs. The following is a review of the 

existing travel market conditions for the 15 

major market city pairs. 

4.4 Existing Conditions: Major Markets

Auto travel remains the primary mode of travel along the Empire Corridor. When considering those 

exits on the Thruway most closely associated with Amtrak rail station locations, auto trips constitute 

over 79 percent of trips, as shown in Exhibit B-29, followed by bus, air and then rail. Rail has the lowest 

market share with fewer than 3 percent of all trips. In 2009, the total trip market (one-way person 

rides) for the Empire Corridor Major Markets for all four modes was approximately 35.6 million trips see 

Exhibit B-31. 

Exhibit B-30

Region MPO Single Trips

NYC NYMTC 4,890,413

Albany CDTC 5,196,121

Utica HOCTS 4,489,598

Syracuse SMTC 6,212,671

Rochester GTC 7,564,654

Buffalo GBNRTC 7,236,248

Total 35,589,708

Source: Adirondack Trailways, Amtrak, Bureau of Transportation 

Statistics, Greyhound, Megabus, NYSDOT, New York State Thruway 

Authority.

Exhibit B-31: 2009 Empire Corridor Total Trips for Major Market Pairs

Origin/ 

Destination NYC Albany Utica Syracuse Rochester Buffalo Total

NYC 0 2,745,433 284,700 485,258 480,989 876,594 4,872,974

Albany 2,762,873 103 1,213,094 636,423 370,918 330,454 5,313,864

Utica 284,700 1,149,395 0 2,373,015 379,762 239,028 4,425,899

Syracuse 485,258 610,114 2,373,015 0 1,630,386 1,087,591 6,186,364

Rochester 480,989 360,812 379,762 1,630,386 21 4,702,578 7,554,548

Buffalo 876,594 330,265 239,028 1,087,591 4,702,578 5 7,236,059

Total 4,890,413 5,196,121 4,489,599 6,212,672 7,564,655 7,236,248 35,589,708

Source: Adirondack Trailways, Amtrak, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Greyhound, Megabus, NYSDOT, New York 

State Thruway Authority.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page B-35

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting 

The greatest number of total trips was made from Rochester to Buffalo, with over 4.7 million trips or 

over 60 percent of their respective transportation markets. Rochester is the most frequent origin and 

destination on the Empire Corridor. All of the Cities on the western corridor show solid travel markets 

between the various markets. This indicates a positive opportunity for HSIPR service, given to enhance 

the strongly linked markets anchored by medium sized cities. Discretionary choice riders will ride 

convenient, reliable transit service. 

4.4.1 Existing Conditions: Auto

As shown in Exhibit B-28, if considering the Thruway traffic that runs the entire length of the empire 

corridor, 96 percent, of total Empire Corridor area trips are made by auto. However, when looking at 

travel between the major market pairs currently served by rail, the potential auto travel market that 

enhanced rail ridership services would compete with as shown in Exhibit B-32 is 29 million trips or 81

percent of the total potential travel market between the major market cities in 2009. Rochester and 

Buffalo have the greatest number of automobile trips with over six million trips originating out of each 

market. This represents the vast majority of travel for these city pairs, as 74 percent of all trips between 

New York and Albany and 95 percent between Buffalo and Rochester were made by auto. Public transit 

modes have difficulty in competing with auto, especially between city pairs in close proximity, as there is 

no need for the traveler to consider schedule, frequency or transit connections. 

An analysis of Exhibits B-31 and B-32 indicates that only 5 percent of trips between NYC-Buffalo were 

made by car, as compared to 76 percent from Albany-Buffalo. As the following sections on air, train and 

bus will show this is due to a combination of factors including the variation in frequency of transit 

service between these destinations, as well as time and cost. 

Exhibit B-32: 2009 Empire Corridor Auto Trips by Major Market Pairs

Origin/

Destination NYC Albany Utica Syracuse Rochester Buffalo Total

NYC 0 2,019,534 134,243 3,584 25,380 45,129 2,227,869

Albany 2,034,748 0 1,176,909 588,846 325,229 261,330 4,387,062

Utica 134,243 1,113,393 0 2,337,782 361,967 209,413 4,156,797

Syracuse 3,584 562,538 2,337,782 0 1,549,870 929,718 5,383,491

Rochester 25,380 315,125 361,967 1,549,870 0 4,559,912 6,812,253

Buffalo 45,129 261,534 209,413 929,718 4,559,912 0 6,005,705

Total 2,243,084 4,272,123 4,220,313 5,409,799 6,822,357 6,005,501 28,973,177

Source: New York State Thruway Authority, Citilabs

Page B-36 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Auto Trips – Travel Mode Characteristics

For purposes of evaluating the automobile market, several key variables were identified and used to 

define the various travel characteristics associated with auto travel along the corridor. There are two 

key characteristics associates with auto selection as the preferred mode of travel, travel time and cost. 

Travel time is a product of congestion and distance between origin and destination and an assumed 

average speed. 

Auto Trips – Congestion

Currently the NYS Thruway is not a heavily congested corridor. However, the major urban areas on the 

corridor, including Metro NYC, Albany, Syracuse, Rochester, and Buffalo access areas off Thruway which 

suffer from various levels of congestion leading to significant delays in auto and bus travel. Congestion 

is particularly severe in the Metro NYC area – constraining the speed of vehicle trips originating out of 

the NYMTC MPO. Exhibit B-33 below identifies congestion as identified in the forecast model under the 

existing conditions for 2009 Am Peak. The Exhibit is based on VC ratios or vehicle congestion as factored 

by the percentage of utilization of a road segment based on its classification and percentage utilization 

of carrying capacity based on the roads total of lanes and speed limits. Exhibit B-33 below shows those 

road segments in blue that have a VC ratio of .85, which translates to a level of service D. 

Exhibit B-33: AM Peak Congestion 2009

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page B-37

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting 

Auto Trips – Cost Factors

Cost, although a seemingly straightforward variable, is actually a complex variable – that is based on the 

differential value of time based on trip purpose. Exhibit B-34 below identifies some of the key 

components used for factoring trips and travel costs for auto use. In this study, a perceived value of 

operating a passenger vehicle was calculated at 16.7 cents.

18 Although national standards put the 

actually cost of operating a vehicle at approximately 55 cents a mile, users generally do not perceive this 

cost when considering what travel mode to use from a behavioral standpoint. Further, an average of 

1.519 occupants per vehicle was used to scale the auto trip market. This is important as the value of the 

automobile as a travel mode increases as the person loading of a car increases – making it a more cost 

effective mode of travel compared to ticket prices associated with individual travelers using transit. 

Finally, for purposes of evaluating cost and time value, the model used to forecast travel mode selection 

was based on the identification of two types of traveler trip purpose on the corridor, business and nonbusiness users. As the Exhibit shows below, the assumed share of trips for business purposes is 25 

percent of the total market20. The difference between the two purposes is important as the value of 

time for business users is nearly a dollar a minute while only 27 cents for all other trip purposes21. This 

distinction is important as rail, through lowered travel times, attempts to compete for the business 

market with other – currently faster travel modes. A detailed explanation of trip purpose and value of 

time is discussed in the directly following section on comparative modes. 

Exhibit B-35 identifies the modeled cost of Auto trips prior to sensitivity adjustment to time for trip 

purpose as discussed above. Given the fact that an average automobile carries 1.5 passengers per 

vehicle, this mode is generally found to be the most cost effective of all modes from a behavioral 

standpoint – i.e. users consider auto to be the most cost effective of travel options given the length and 

duration of trips on this corridor. The actual cost of individual vehicle trips is far higher when 

considering fluctuating and rising fuel prices, wear and tear, insurance, and cost to own in conjunction 

with secondary or collective cost of vehicle trips such as taxes associated with highway projects, 

18 The use of .1674 as a the cost of a vehicle mile is the cost as perceived by user as identified in literature review and as 

used in previous similar travel demand studies.

19 Average Vehicle Occupancy and assumed share of trips for business purposes: general value based on inspection of 

NHTS 2001 survey summaries available from https://www.nysdot.gov/divisions/policy-and-strategy/darb/daiunit/ttss/2001-nhts

20 Average Vehicle Occupancy and assumed share of trips for business purposes: general value based on inspection of 

NHTS 2001 survey summaries available from https://www.nysdot.gov/divisions/policy-and-strategy/darb/daiunit/ttss/2001-nhts 

21 Value of time for business/other purpose trips: adjusted based upon average income from California HSR model report 

(Outwater et. al., “California Statewide Model for High-Speed Rail”, Journal of choice Modeling, 3(1) 2009, p.75)

Exhibit B-34: Auto Market Input Variables

Variables Values

Average Vehicle Operating Cost in Dollars/mile 0.1674

Average Vehicle Occupancy 1.5

Value of time for business purpose trips in Dollars/minute ($/minute) 0.939

Value of time for all "other" trip purposes in Dollars/minute 0.272

Assumed Share of trips for business purposes 0.25

Page B-38 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting Tier 1 Draft EIS 

environmental impacts from CO2 and other emissions, as well as opportunity costs associated with lost 

time associated with travel on congested roadways for business purposes and commercial carriers. 

Auto Trips – Travel Time23

Travel times associated with automobiles for the Empire Corridor are subject to congestion and route 

selection between city pairs. Auto-travel, given the modest level of congestion on most parts of the 

corridor, is the second fastest form of travel under existing conditions for most parts of the corridor 

when compared to other modes. Other than air, which does not serve all markets on the corridor, auto 

has an advantage in travel time in the Empire Corridor versus current bus and rail service as users are 

able to leave their origin and arrive at destination without the transfer of modes required of public 

transit users who must select a secondary transport mode before arrival to and departure from origin 

and destination transit facilities. Exhibit B-36 identifies the total trip time encountered for each major 

market pair as accessed by automobile. 

22 Auto costs include perceived cost of car usage plus toll between major market pairs.

23 Travel times were derived from Google Maps which takes into account congestion in average speed of vehicle from 

origin to destination.

Exhibit B-35: Modeled Cost of Auto Trip by Major Market Pair 22

O Zone \ D Zone NYC Albany Utica Syracuse Rochester Buffalo

NYC $0 $25 $40 $41 $56 $66

Albany $25 $0 $16 $24 $38 $48

Utica $40 $16 $0 $9 $23 $33

Syracuse $41 $24 $9 $0 $15 $25

Rochester $56 $38 $23 $15 $0 $12

Buffalo $66 $48 $33 $25 $12 $0

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page B-39

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting 

4.5 Auto Trips Data Collection

Auto ridership was created from the travel data obtained from New York State Thruway Authority. The 

travel data is compiled from the toll transactions (EZ pass and ticketed) that take place at the various 

entrances / exits to and from the Thruway. To understand the vehicular travel pattern on this corridor, 

as a first step an auto profile for this corridor was created. This profile is based upon data collected from 

toll plazas located along the corridor and establishing an origin/ destination (O/D) database for this 

corridor. The data is based on both kind of transactions – EZ pass based or ticket based. To establish the 

O/D database Thruway entry and exit numbers were correlated to the destination cities / metropolitan 

areas and the entry point of the traffic using these specific exits were tabulated to complete the 

database. 

Since the ticketed system of the Thruway ends at the exit 15, the origin destination data obtained from 

the Thruway does not provide a clear origin or destination of an auto trip going through the toll plaza at 

exit 15. Hence the data gathered was further disaggregated to the different zones within the NYC 

metropolitan area with the help of a cube component. 

4.5.1 Auto Trips Data Collection Limitations

Although the model utilizes a matrix of 1080 origins to 1080 destination pairs to assign travel for auto – 

which is the actual market with which rail competes, the complexity of this matrix makes it difficult to 

show or demonstrate the trip assignment process. To interpret this data, O/D pairs for auto were 

identified through MPO markets and the Thruway exists within their geographic boundaries. The 

purpose of this data formatting was to allow readers to understand the competitive markets that rail 

likely compete within a known or understood geographic framework. Ultimately however, this 

understates the total market from which the model considers rail to compete – which is the entire state 

of NY based on a mode choice selection algorithm that considers the likelihood of using rail based on a

type of gravity related to the distance of a station from both the origin and destination of the actual trip 

rather than arbitrarily collecting all auto trips that have origins and destinations within MPO pairs and 

positing only those pairs as the total market. Ultimately however the MPO geographies are large and 

likely representative enough of the market to capture a reasonable scenario of the existing auto travel 

market. 

Exhibit B-36: Auto Travel Times (in minutes) by Major Market Pair

O Zone \ D Zone NYC Albany Utica Syracuse Rochester Buffalo

NYC 0 167 253 262 351 413

Albany 170 0 100 147 225 286

Utica 255 98 0 60 137 199

Syracuse 262 147 60 0 93 154

Rochester 351 225 137 93 0 80

Buffalo 413 286 199 154 81 0

Source: Google Maps/ http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&tab=wl

Page B-40 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Further, there are various vehicular travel routes between the upstate cities of Syracuse, Rochester, 

Buffalo and the NYC. Unlike the NYSTA the alternate routes are not tolled and the information about the 

travel patterns on these routes does not readily exist and the collection of such data would require 

increasingly significant dedication of resources to conduct surveys and further analyze the findings of 

such surveys. Finally, the study could not account for the travel from the three upstate cities utilizing a 

travel route of which passes through Pennsylvania and New Jersey before entering New York City. 

Existing Conditions: Bus

Regional Express Bus has been a growing mode of travel throughout the northeast, and in the case of 

the Empire Corridor - offering better service, more amenities and a lower travel cost than previous bus 

services or competing Amtrak service. Bus is expected to continue to compete heavily with rail – and 

may even degrade rail’s share of the transit market in the corridor if no improvements to Amtrak are 

made. Bus travel is the second most popular mode of travel between major city pairs along the corridor, 

carrying 12 percent of all trips, as shown in Exhibit B-29. In 2009, there were nearly 4.6 million bus 

passenger trips on the Empire Corridor. This market size is due to the combination of its low-cost, 

convenience and frequency. As Exhibit B-37 shows, New York City is the most frequented bus 

origin/destination on the Empire Corridor, with approximately 1.5 million trips. Buffalo was the second 

most popular bus origin/destination on the corridor with approximately 872,562 trips. The greatest 

number of these trips is made along the entire length corridor, from NYC - Buffalo, with over 427,700 

trips, or 42 percent of the travel market between this city pair. This makes bus travel the second most 

popular travel mode between New York and Buffalo, following behind air. 

Exhibit B-37: Empire Corridor Bus Trips by Major Market Pairs

Origin\ 

Destination NYC Albany Utica Syracuse Rochester Buffalo Total

NYC 405,460 176,212 266,885 217,272 427,700 1,493,528

Albany 410,592 49,915 50,775 38,727 68,848 618,857

Utica 176,212 50,775 52,497 23,998 42,169 345,651

Syracuse 302,812 50,775 52,497 92,084 187,611 685,779

Rochester 236,090 51,636 24,097 104,133 159,211 575,167

Buffalo 422,568 63,684 36,145 183,209 166,956 872,562

Total 1,548,274 622,331 338,866 657,498 539,037 885,539 4,591,544

Source: NYSDOT, Megabus, Greyhound, Adirondack Trailways

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page B-41

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting 

While New York-Albany captures just slightly less trips than the New York-Buffalo market with 405,460

trips, this is a small percentage of the total New York- Albany travel market, at approximately 14

percent. This indicates that even if a transit mode cost is low, and has competitive time and 

frequencies, it will still have a difficult time competing with the convenience of the personal auto in this 

particular market. Over 20 percent of trips from Albany- Buffalo were made by bus or 68,848 out of a 

total 341,310 trips, making it the second most popular mode of travel between this city pair. 

Bus Trips –Travel Mode Characteristics 

Key characteristics that define the bus mode as modeled in the forecast include frequency of service, 

fare price, and travel time. Although on-time performance is a key additional characteristic of bus 

service, such data was impossible to access through the private carriers. Additional model input 

variables include trip purpose/travel time sensitivity, linking access and egress times, and congestion 

factors. 

Bus Frequency

Frequency as a characteristic of transit service is a critical factor in making it a success against other 

transit modes and competing against car travel. Due to modest capital and operating cost in 

comparison to rail and air, bus frequency is considerably more robust than those transit modes. Nearly 

600 bus trips connect the major markets on the corridor – providing better than hourly service to many 

of these markets. 

Travelers departing from New York City have many options to take the bus to Albany and Buffalo, with a 

frequency of 41 a day. This convenient scheduling leads to a strong NYC-Buffalo bus travel market. 

24 Frequency identified via online schedules for major bus carriers serving the Empire Corridor

Exhibit B-38: 2009 Bus Frequency - Major Carriers 24

O Zone \ D Zone NYC Albany Utica Syracuse Rochester Buffalo Total

NYC 0 41 19 33 27 41 161

Albany 41 0 9 11 12 10 83

Utica 19 9 0 12 6 8 54

Syracuse 33 11 12 0 23 24 103

Rochester 27 12 6 23 0 21 89

Buffalo 41 10 8 24 21 0 104

Total 161 83 54 103 89 104 594

Source: Megabus, Greyhound, Adirondack Trailways

Page B-42 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Bus Trip Time and Reliability

Bus trip time includes a number of considerations including access, wait, and travel time. In terms of 

travel characteristics, bus service is a blend of auto and rail travel, susceptible to the same driving 

environment as auto and the same scheduling and competitive pricing scheme as rail. As noted above, 

the analysis for this report was unable to include an on-time performance standard for the many bus 

companies that operate in the region. Wait and access time were generated by the model based on 

headways between buses. For the purposes of simplification – an average was used to facilitate – for 

the reader, the identification of travel times for bus with associated city pairs. The Exhibit below 

includes a wait time of 10 minutes, 10 minutes, and 25 minutes of combined access and egress time 

added to the travel time. 

Bus Cost Factors

The key to bus service is price. Historically, regional bus service has served economically disadvantaged 

populations – which provided valuable mobility to populations that could not afford air travel and to 

those that did not own an automobile. As Exhibit B-40shows, the average fare structure of the major 

carriers serving the corridor meets the goal of providing low cost, regular service to the major markets 

considered in this study. Bus is more dominant than rail in terms of ridership due to the combination of 

slightly lower fares, better travel time and far more regular and reliable service. Enhanced service and 

speed along with a competitive price from rail would likely reduce the transit dominance of bus service 

on the Empire Corridor. In recent years, bus carriers such as Greyhound and Megabus have focused on 

providing improved service tailored to business and student markets – this focus by bus carriers will 

25 Bus haul times identified by schedules provided by Trailways, Greyhound, and Megabus. Applied Access and wait times 

identified from professional resources and observation.

Exhibit B-39: 2009 Bus Haul Times by Major Markets 25

O Zone \ D Zone NYC Albany Utica Syracuse Rochester Buffalo

NYC 0 145 360 345 420 530

Albany 145 0 165 205 345 435

Utica 360 165 0 105 245 335

Syracuse 345 205 105 0 140 225

Rochester 420 345 245 140 0 135

Buffalo 530 435 335 225 135 0 

Source: Megabus, Greyhound, Adirondack Trailways

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page B-43

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting 

challenge the ability of rail to capture this important “choice rider” category – that seek not only value 

but quality as a substitute to automobile travel. 

Bus Trips Data Collection

The bus data was a combination of two data sources. Information regarding the bus service, frequency, 

schedule and travel time was gathered collecting data from each of the websites of the various 

commercial bus operators servicing the Empire Corridor, primarily Megabus, Greyhound and Adirondack 

Trailways, in addition to a few smaller operators.

Ridership numbers are not directly available from the commercial bus operators; therefore it was 

necessary to interpolate ridership numbers by using a loading factor. Different loading factors were 

obtained from sources at NYSDOT, and applied to buses, depending on whether the origin or the 

destination was NYC and whether the bus was leaving or reaching within the AM or the PM peak hours.

It is perceived that the major driver of the rail market would be the six major metropolitan areas along 

the corridor, namely NYC, Albany, Utica, Syracuse, Rochester and Buffalo and hence the bus data was 

collected for intercity travel between the above mentioned cities. Bus service and ridership related data 

between the other intermediate cities located along the corridor was not readily and consistently 

available and the hence could not be incorporated into the model. 

Bus Data Collection Limitations

Ridership numbers are not directly available from the commercial bus operators; therefore it was 

necessary to interpolate ridership numbers by using a loading factor. Different loading factors were 

obtained from sources at NYSDOT, and applied to buses, depending on whether the origin or the 

Exhibit B-40: Existing Bus Service – Major Carriers – Major Markets Fare Structure

O Zone \ D Zone NYC Albany Utica Syracuse Rochester Buffalo

NYC $0 $30 $62 $40 $55 $60

Albany $45 $0 $28 $45 $57 $73

Utica $62 $28 $0 $19 $40 $0

Syracuse $38 $45 $19 $0 $52 $36

Rochester $55 $57 $40 $52 $0 $22

Buffalo $60 $63 - $36 $22 $0

Source: NYSDOT, Megabus, Greyhound, Adirondack Trailways

Page B-44 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting Tier 1 Draft EIS 

destination was NYC and whether the bus was leaving or reaching within the AM or the PM peak hours. 

On-time performance information was also not readily available from the bus operators. 

4.5.2 Existing Conditions: Air

Air travel is the third most frequented travel mode along the corridor, carrying approximately 6 percent

of all trips, as shown in Exhibit B-29. As shown in Exhibit B-41, in 2009 there were nearly 2.4 million air 

passenger trips on the Empire Corridor. There were 507,546 air trips made between New York City and 

Buffalo, or 44 percent of all travel for this market, making air travel the most popular mode of travel for 

this city pair. It is assumed that air passenger trips taken between the Empire Corridor city pairs include 

travelers from the Toronto, Connecticut and Northern New Jersey market. This is especially true of the 

Toronto market using the Buffalo to New York Air route. Air is also the most popular mode of travel 

between New York City and Rochester, with approximately 300,000 trips in 2009, or 52 percent of all 

travel for this city pair. 

Air travel is not the favored mode from NYC- Albany, carrying only 3 percent of all trips in this market. 

This is due to the fact that air travel is inefficient at short distances. Travelers must access airports 

located outside the city core, and schedule time for security and check-in processes. These time barriers 

result in market advantages for an improved HSIPR service rail service within this market. 

Exhibit B-41: Air Trips by Major Market Pairs

Origin/ 

Destination NYC Albany Utica Syracuse Rochester Buffalo Total

NYC 0 99,443 0 262,706 298,825 507,489 1,168,463

Albany 98,006 0 0 0 0 0 98,006

Utica 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Syracuse 266,899 0 0 0 0 0 266,899

Rochester 296,886 0 0 0 0 0 296,886

Buffalo 507,546 0 0 0 0 0 507,546

Total 1,169,338 99,443 0 262,706 298,825 507,489 2,337,801

Source: Bureau of Travel Statistics 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page B-45

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting 

Air Trips - Travel Market Characteristics

Air travel is a complex travel mode for the user and in the complexity of the entire origin to destination 

line haul. For today’s aviation user, delays, wait times, access and egress issues, and security checks, 

and baggage pick-up wait make it the most demanding and inconvenient of transit modes. For short 

regional in air travel trips such as those present on the Empire Corridor –between NYC and the Buffalo, 

Rochester, Syracuse, and Albany markets, air travel is incredibly inefficient – as wait and access times 

dwarf the in air travel time – and can often be the most frustrating of travel modes for users. Further, 

the cost of air travel is the highest of all travel modes and is subject various additional costs such as 

baggage, access, and parking costs. Given such characteristics, an improved high speed rail, with 

favorable fares and more competitive travel times should dominate between these two modes. As an 

example, Acela Express service from NYC to Washington D.C. has over a 50 percent market share 

between air and train travel and is one of only two Amtrak lines to turn a profit.26 The related section 

4.5.2.1a Frequency describes in more detail the travel time components and fare structures that define 

Empire Corridor air service. 

Frequency 

Frequency of air travel servicing the Empire Corridor is fairly robust and competes favorably with bus 

and rail – particularly on trips to cities on the western portion of the corridor with greater land travel 

time for bus and rail transit. As shown on Exhibit B-42 below, in 2009, there were 27 round trip flights 

per day from New York Metropolitan airports to Buffalo, and 8 between New York Metropolitan airports 

and Albany. In contrast, there is none between Albany and Buffalo. 

26 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acela_Express

27 http://www.orbitz.com/

Exhibit B-42: Frequency of Air Service on Empire Corridor 27

O Zone\ D Zone NYC Albany Utica Syracuse Rochester Buffalo Total

NYC 0 8 0 18 19 26 71

Albany 8 0 0 0 0 0 8 

Utica 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Syracuse 17 0 0 0 0 0 17

Rochester 20 0 0 0 0 0 20 

Buffalo 27 0 0 0 0 0 27

Total 72 8 0 18 19 26 149

Source: Various commercial air carriers

Page B-46 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Travel Cost Factors

Air travel is by far the most expensive form of travel in the Corridor. Although airfare costs can vary 

greatly depending on time of purchase and seasonal variability as well as fluctuate regularly with 

changes in fuel price – this mode of travel always balances a comparatively high cost with comparatively 

fast travel times. Further, as noted above – the costs below are usually the bare minimum of total trip 

costs for air travelers, with baggage, airport access or parking costs adding considerable addition cost to 

the overall trip. Exhibit B-43 details the costs associated with air trips on the corridor. 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page B-47

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting 

Air Trips Data Collection 

Air travel data has been obtained from the Bureau of Travel Statistics.29 The website provides data for all 

flights flying to and from airports within the United States. The data obtained from this website was 

analyzed to get the air travel data by airport pairs for the selected airports within New York State and 

the Liberty International at Newark, NJ. 

Air Trips Data Collection Limitations

There were no air data collection limitations. 

4.5.3 Existing Conditions: Rail

There were approximately 932,801 Empire Corridor major market rail trips in 2009, capturing just fewer 

than 3 percent of the market, as shown in Exhibit B-44. The most frequented origin and destination was 

New York City, with approximately 423,000 trips. By far, the city pair most traveled to and from by rail is 

New York to Albany, with almost 320,000 trips. However, capturing only 11 percent of this market, rail 

is the third most popular mode of travel from New York to Albany, only beating air. Travel time and the 

cost do not make air travel competitive between New York and Albany. Travel time is discussed further 

in Section 4.5.4 Comparative Travel Characteristics: Travel Time and Cost. Similarly, rail is currently not 

competitive with Air from NY to Buffalo, capturing less than 1 percent of the market. 

28 http://www.orbitz.com/

29 http://www.transtats.bts.gov/DL_SelectFields.asp?Table_ID=259&DB_Short_Name=Air

Exhibit B-43: Average Air Travel Costs between Major Airports on the Empire Corridor 28

O Zone \ D Zone NYC Albany Utica Syracuse Rochester Buffalo

NYC $0 $145 $0 $101 $102 $103

Albany $145 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Utica $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Syracuse $101 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Rochester $102 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Buffalo $103 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Source: Various commercial air carriers

Page B-48 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Frequency - Level of Service

Empire Corridor Service between New York and Albany-Rensselaer consists of thirteen (13) daily 

roundtrips, while Albany-Rensselaer and Buffalo has a service frequency of just four (4) roundtrips per 

day. Overall the service is very modest – particularly for the East-West Corridor. The lack of service 

directly limits the market potential of rail against the other transit modes serving this corridor. 

Ultimately rail service from NYC to Buffalo and from cities along the East-West Corridor is limited to 

leisure travel exclusively or multi-day business trips. 

Exhibit B-44: Rail Trips by Major Market Pairs

Origin/

Destination NYC Albany Utica Syracuse Rochester Buffalo Total

NYC 0 320,155 19,858 29,787 23,427 29,881 423,108

Albany 320,155 0 2,082 7,013 8,224 11,133 348,607

Utica 19,858 2,082 0 819 1,421 2,480 26,659

Syracuse 29,787 7,013 819 0 1,794 6,466 45,878

Rochester 23,427 8,224 1,421 1,794 0 1,862 36,728

Buffalo 29,881 11,133 2,480 6,466 1,862 0 51,821

Total 423,108 348,607 26,659 45,878 36,728 51,821 932,801

Source: Amtrak

Exhibit B-45: Rail Round-Trips Serving Empire Corridor Major Markets

O Zone \ D Zone NYC Albany Utica Syracuse Rochester Buffalo Total

NYC 0 12 4 4 4 4 28

Albany 12 0 4 4 4 4 28

Utica 4 4 0 4 4 4 20

Syracuse 4 4 4 0 4 4 20

Rochester 4 4 4 4 0 4 20

Buffalo 4 4 4 4 4 0 20

Total 28 28 20 20 20 20 136

Source: Amtrak

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page B-49

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting 

Despite the competitive travel time from NYC to Albany, the first train daily train does not arrive in 

Albany until 9:45 am, slightly later than ideal for business travelers. A one way trip between AlbanyRensselaer and Buffalo has a greater than five (5) hour scheduled travel time. As shown in Exhibit B-46

and 4.19, it is not possible to travel by passenger rail from Albany-Rensselaer to Buffalo for a day trip. 

The earliest westbound train arriving in Buffalo from Albany-Rensselaer arrives at 3:10 PM while the 

latest eastbound train departing from Buffalo departs at 1:14 PM. The service also does not serve peak 

direction trips between cities as there are no scheduled eastbound trains between Buffalo and AlbanyRensselaer that arrive in the Albany-Rensselaer before 9 AM. The limited service between AlbanyRensselaer and Buffalo is insufficient to attract travelers who have other transportation options such as 

auto, bus or air that provide them with greater flexibility in scheduling their travel. 

Exhibit B-46: Daily Train Schedule: Albany-Rensselaer to Buffalo Depew

Service Departure

Albany-Rensselaer, NY

Arrival

Buffalo-Depew, NY Duration

63 Maple Leaf 10:03 am 3:10 pm 5 hours 7 minutes

281 Empire Service 12:30 pm 6:02 pm 5 hours 32 minutes

283 Empire Service 4:30 pm 9:57 pm 5 hours 27 minutes

49 Lake Shore Limited 7:05 pm 11:59 pm 4 hours 54 minutes

Source: Amtrak Empire Service: New York, Niagara Falls, and Toronto NRPC Form W8 6/21/2010

Exhibit B-47: Daily Train Schedule: Buffalo to Albany-Rensselaer

Service Departure

Buffalo-Depew, NY

Arrival

Albany-Rensselaer, NY Duration

280 Empire Service 4:29 am 9:45 am 5 hours 16 minutes

284 Empire Service 7:59 am 1:45 pm 5 hours 46 minutes

48 Lake Shore Limited 9:08 am 2:50 pm 5 hours 42 minutes

64 Maple Leaf 1:14 pm 6:50 pm 5 hours 36 minutes

Notes: Train 280 does not operate on Sunday

Source: Amtrak Empire Service: New York, Niagara Falls, and Toronto NRPC Form W8 6/21/2010

Page B-50 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Trip Time and Reliability

With a scheduled run time of 150 minutes and a total trip time of 190 minutes including access and 

egress times and 1 standard deviation of average delay with an average cost of $38, rail travel from NYC 

- Albany, is competitive with all other modes (see Section 4.5.4 Comparative Travel Characteristics: 

Travel Time and Cost). 

In contrast, at 8:12 min rail haul time between NYC and Buffalo Exchange Street at an average cost of 

$58 is not competitive with the other modes, see Exhibit B-49. The long trip-time for a transit mode is a 

contributing factor in discouraging the use of the rail corridor to travel between key cities like BuffaloNew York City by discretionary (i.e., choice) passengers. Furthermore, poor reliability further hinders 

discretionary choice passengers. (See Section 4.4.5 Comparative Travel Characteristics a complete 

comparison of trip time between modes.)

Exhibit B-48: Scheduled Travel Times for Major Market Pairs

Origin/

Destination

New 

York Albany Schenectady Utica Syracuse Rochester Buffalo Niagara Falls

New York 2:30 3:20 4:40 5:45 7:06 8:12 9:34

Albany 2:30 0:24 1:42 2:48 4:08 5:15 6:45

Schenectady 3:40 0:41 1:18 2:24 3:44 4:51 6:21

Utica 5:06 2:01 1:21 1:05 2:26 3:32 5:01

Syracuse 6:10 3:05 2:25 1:04 1:20 2:27 3:53

Rochester 7:41 4:36 3:55 2:34 1:30 1:06 2:31

Buffalo Ex St. 8:12 5:35 4:54 3:33 2:29 0:59 1:23

Niagara Falls 9:16 6:25 5:48 4:25 3:21 1:51 0:52

Notes: Average of scheduled travel times of trains operating Monday through Friday.

Source: Amtrak Empire Service: New York, Niagara Falls, and Toronto NRPC Form W8 6/21/2010

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page B-51

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting 

A statistical analysis of May 2008 Empire Corridor west of Albany-Rensselaer operations reveals that the 

average actual running time was 58 minutes longer than the scheduled running time, with some trains 

requiring two hours more than the scheduled running time. Moreover, it should be noted that the 

present scheduled times between Albany-Rensselaer30 that include scheduled times ranging from 6:10 

to 6:55 reflect non-competitive average speeds (52 to 46 MPH) and already reflect significant additional 

scheduled time to account for rail congestion on the Corridor. For example, standard rail industry 

practice on primarily double track mainlines call for a 6 percent schedule margin to provide for reliable 

service, whereas the trains on the Empire Corridor have excessive scheduled margins ranging from 14

percent to 24 percent. 

On-time performance records indicate that these scheduled travel times were only met 80.1 percent of 

the time between Penn Station and Albany-Rensselaer and 44.2 percent of the time between AlbanyRensselaer and Niagara Falls in 2008.31 

Amtrak routinely collects information on the causes of train delays, which are frequently due to 

host/owner railroad issues. Exhibit B-50 summarizes the extent of the delays by the responsible entity 

and the major problems on each corridor. Overall, these problems in the Empire Corridor resulted in 

over 161,000 minutes of annual delay, according to analysis of Amtrak data provided to NYSDOT.

Of the 6805 Empire Corridor trains operating between July 1, 2009 and June 30, 2010, more than 10

percent were over 30 minute late. More than 4 percent were more than an hour late and more than 1 

percent was more than two hours late. The average train trip on the Empire Corridor experienced 35 

minutes of delay en route. While some trips can recover some of the delay en route, the vast majority 

do not, leading to the poor OTP results described above. 

30 June 21, 2010 Amtrak public timetable

31 Amtrak Conductor Delay Reports, July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010

Exhibit B-49: Total Haul Times for Major Market Pairs

Origin / Destination NYC Albany Utica Syracuse Rochester Buffalo (ExS)

NYC 0 226 355 429 509 601

Albany 217 0 169 243 323 415

Utica 335 158 0 114 194 286

Syracuse 401 224 106 0 120 212

Rochester 489 312 194 128 0 132

Buffalo Ex St. 568 391 273 207 119 0

Source: Amtrak Empire Service: New York, Niagara Falls, and Toronto NRPC Form W8 6/21/2010

Page B-52 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting Tier 1 Draft EIS 

The cost of rail for travel on the Empire Corridor is very competitive with other forms of travel serving 

the corridor. Compared with similar distances served by Amtrak – the current fare structures appear 

subsidized to induce travelers. Exhibit B-50 identifies the fares associated with rail service for the major 

markets on the Empire Corridor. 

Exhibit B-50: 2009-2010 Empire Corridor Delays

Corridor Segment Entity % of Delay Cause Common Causes

New York City - 

Poughkeepsie

Metro-North 75 Commuter train interference

Amtrak 23 Passenger train interference (New York Penn 

Station), passenger loading issues

Other 2 Waiting for scheduled departure time, weather

PoughkeepsieAlbany-Rensselaer

CSX 61 Slow orders, communications and signals issues, 

freight train interference

Metro-North 11 Poughkeepsie congestion

Other 2 Weather

Albany-Rensselaer – 

Niagara Falls

CSX 73 Freight train interference, slow orders, work 

zones

Amtrak 25 Passenger loading issues, crew related delays

Other 2 Weather, Customs and Immigration

Source: Amtrak Conductor Delay Reports, July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010

Exhibit B-51: Rail Service to Major Markets - Travel Cost

Origin/Destination NYC Albany Utica Syracuse Rochester Buffalo

NYC $0 $38 $57 $57 $57 $58

Albany $38 $0 $23 $27 $41 $46

Utica $57 $23 $0 $18 $27 $36

Syracuse $57 $27 $18 $0 $21 $26

Rochester $57 $41 $27 $21 $0 $19

Buffalo $58 $46 $36 $26 $19 $0

Source: http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=Amtrak/HomePage

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page B-53

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting 

Rail Trips Data Collection 

The rail ridership data was obtained by analyzing the origin-destination data (for year 2009) obtained 

from Amtrak. The data was sorted out by station pairs which provided the ridership between the 

discreet station pairs and also the total boardings at each of the stations. 

Rail Trips Data Collection Limitations

There were no rail data collection limitations.

4.5.4 Comparative Travel Characteristics: Travel Time and Cost

The following section comparatively addresses the competiveness of the various modes studied for each 

of the major markets. Based on distance and existing service characteristics, different modes have 

competitive strengths over others. This section will discuss where current rail service falls in relation to 

other modes in its ability to compete and attract riders between the various markets and market pairs. 

To establish the comparative competitive context, the narrative below will focus on the relationship of 

travel time and cost for some of the major market pairs and will discuss reliability and level of service 

between these markets. 

Identification of Generalized Cost

Prior to discussing the comparative competitive strengths and weaknesses of each travel mode, this 

section describes the generalized cost approach used to take into account the differential value of time 

in terms of monetary cost for different users – i.e. business and non-business user groups.

The application of discrete choice modeling works on the basis of random utility theory wherein the 

logit models are used to develop utility equations or the total disutility of a travel is estimated in the 

form of generalized cost. This generalized cost is basically a linear combination of the monetary cost i.e., 

fare, fuel cost, toll etc. and the non-monetary cost i.e., travel time (walk, wait, in-vehicle time etc.). The 

monetary cost i.e., currency is converted to time using the value of time figure which again varies 

according to the traveler’s purpose of trip and/or income. 

The examples below identify two types of trips present on the Empire Corridor, a relatively short trip 

defined by NYC-ALB in Exhibit B-53 trip and long trips as defined by NYC-BUF in Exhibit B-54. 

Generalized cost is calculated and plotted on the base year rail ridership bar chart to eventually analyze 

the mode shift dynamics between car, air, rail and bus for business and non-business trip. The 

parameters and criteria defining the generalized cost characteristics associated with trips on the Empire 

Corridor are defined in Exhibit B-52 directly below and explained by the following defined acronyms. 

Page B-54 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Exhibit B-53: New York City to Albany Market Generalized Cost33

32 Value of time for business/other purpose trips: adjusted based upon average income from California HSR model report 

(Outwater et. al., “California Statewide Model for High-Speed Rail”, Journal of choice Modeling, 3(1) 2009, p.75) 

33 Ibid, 31

0

500000

1000000

1500000

2000000

2500000

3000000

3500000

4000000

0.00

100.00

200.00

300.00

400.00

500.00

600.00

700.00

800.00

Car Air Rail Bus

Base Year Ridership

Generalized Cost (mins)

Ridership Gcost for Business Riders Gcost for Non-Business Riders

Exhibit B-52: Generalized Cost Input Parameters

Parameters Car Air Rail Bus

Fare for PT ($) 138 38 22

Travel Time (mins) 167

Congested TT (mins) 199.4387

Distance (miles) 150

IVTT (mins) 76 186 150

OVTT (mins) 50 15 20

Gcost (mins) Business 231.50 322.96 256.47 213.43

Gcost (mins) Non-Business 168.38 695.93 527.94 446.86

Modeled Ridership 3530404 98006 320155 392362

where, 

Gcost= generalized cost in minutes 

Gcost (car) = travel time (congested) + distance*(VOC/VOT) + toll/VOT

Gcost (PT) = IVTT + 2*OVTT + fare/VOT

VOC= vehicle operating cost (around 0.1674 $/miles)

VOT = value of time for a business trip (0.939 $/min) and for a non-business trip (0.272 $/min)

IVTT= in-vehicle travel time in minutes32

OVTT= out of the vehicle travel time in minutes

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page B-55

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting 

It can be concluded from the charts that the disutility or the generalized cost between NYC-ALB, 

irrespective of the trip purpose, is highest for the air mode, and then rail, car and bus in progressive 

order. This also suggest that the bus is highly competitive mode for a trip between New York City to 

Albany, but car leads in terms of the ridership because of its own advantages to directly reach to the 

final destination. 

The ratio of the generalized cost between the non-business and business trip between NYMTC to ALB 

for a) car is 1.34 b) air is 2.12 c) rail is 1.39 and d) bus is 1.27. This can be interpreted as the propensity 

for the air mode to be preferred for a non-business trip is more than twice for a business trip while for 

all other modes the propensity lies between 1.27 to 1.39, suggesting not a very significant difference 

between a business and a non-business traveler’s mode choice preference for rail, bus and car in terms 

of parameters weighed in the generalized cost equation.

Exhibit B-54: New York City to Buffalo Market Generalized Cost34

When compared to a trip between NYMTC to BUF i.e., a longer trip compared to a shorter trip: NYC-ALB, 

air mode has the least generalized cost or the disutility and hence highly competitive and preferred 

mode for both business and non-business trip. The least disutility or the generalized cost after air a) for 

a business traveler is followed by car, bus and rail, and b) for a non-business traveler is followed by bus, 

car and rail, in progressive order for both travelers. This suggest that after air, car and bus are the 

34 Source: Value of time for business/other purpose trips: adjusted based upon average income from California HSR 

model report (Outwater et. al., “California Statewide Model for High-Speed Rail”, Journal of choice Modeling, 3(1) 2009, 

p.75)

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

450000

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Car Air Rail Bus

Base Year Ridership

Generalized Cost (mins)

Ridership Gcost Business Riders Gcost for Non-Business Riders

Page B-56 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting Tier 1 Draft EIS 

second most competitive mode when analyzed using generalized cost; but the disutility of driving a car 

for a longer time almost eight hours (not accounted in the generalized cost equation) compared to a sit 

and travel in a bus illustrates the higher bus ridership compared to car. 

The ratio of the generalized cost between the non-business and business trip between NYMTC to BUF 

for a) car is 1.36 b) air is 1.95 c) rail is 1.21 and d) bus is 1.2. Similar interpretation, as NYMTC to ALB, can 

be carried out i.e., the propensity for the air mode to be preferred for the non-business trip purpose is

almost twice for the business trip purpose while for all other modes, the propensity lies between 1.2 to 

1.39, suggesting not a very significant difference between a business and a non-business traveler’s mode 

choice preference for rail, bus and car. 

Calculation Wait Times by Transit Mode

One of the key calculations inputted into travel time is an average wait time. Wait time, as shown in 

Exhibit B-55, for transit mode can considerably increase travel time along with OTP and average delay 

magnitude as well as access and egress. All of these additional times add to the time disadvantage to 

slower speed transit compared to car. As a part of the total trip time calculations – wait time is factored 

by transit modes – as each mode has different average wait time characteristics based on number of 

headways between departures as well as variable characteristics between mode – such as the 

heightened level of security for air travel. 

Exhibit B-55: Comparative Wait Times for Transit Modes35

35 Source: Amtrak, Google, Orbitz, Expedia, Megabus, Greyhound, Adirondack Trailways, Transportation Planning 

Handbook ITE, 3rd Edition 2009

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1 60 120 240 241

Wait Time in Minutes

Headway in Minutes

Air Wait Times

Bus Wait Times

Rail Wait Times

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page B-57

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting 

Comparative Evaluation of Travel Time and Cost – NYC to Major Market Examples 

This section describes the interplay between cost and travel time and the relationship to distance 

between origin and destination in terms of determining ridership. These existing characteristics are 

important factors to consider when evaluating future forecasts and alternatives to be considered. While 

some modes of travel are much faster, their cost may be much greater. These are two factors that 

affect travel behavior and which are applied into the demand management model. The following 

section evaluates two types of trips to show the relationship between cost and time and trip distance – 

a range of longer trips as shown by the NYC Market to other Major Markets and a short trip between 

Syracuse and Rochester to show the sensitivity between Rochester and Syracuse and to show the 

relationship between three similar cost travel modes, rail, bus and car. 

As shown in Exhibit B-54, when considering total travel times36 alone, all modes are competitive from 

NYC to Albany. As a result, air becomes much less competitive from NYC to Albany when cost is 

considered, capturing only 3 percent of this market, as indicated by analysis of the various modes in 

Section 4.2. Traveling by vehicle from New York to Albany has the lowest overall cost, estimated as 25 

dollars37. This is slightly lower than the $35 and $38 average costs of bus and rail, respectively, and more 

than five times lower than the average air travel cost of $134. Given the moderate distance of 

approximately 147 miles between the two cities, every transit mode is at a disadvantage to the car due 

to transit linkages, wait time factors, and the need to follow a predetermined schedule. However, if 

schedules are convenient and service is reliable, rail can be seen as a competitive travel mode from NYC 

to Albany from a cost and convenience standpoint. 

Exhibit B-56: Travel Time and Cost for One-Way Trips from NYC

36 Total travel time includes average delays, dwell times, security clearance.

37 Car travel cost is determined by a rate of .1674 per mile – which is the perceived rather than actual cost as identified by 

Transportation Planning Handbook, ITE 2009

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

RAIL AIR CAR BUS

Travel Cost in $

Travel Time in Minutes

NYC-ALB_TTimes

NYC-SYR_TTimes

NYC-ROC_TTimes

NYC-BUF_TTimes

NYC-ALB_Fares/Cost

NYC-SYR_Fares/Cost

NYC-ROC_Fares/Cost

NYC-BUF_Fares/Cost

Page B-58 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Source: Amtrak, Google, Orbitz, Expedia, Megabus, Greyhound, Adirondack Trailways

While trip cost is still the most expensive when traveling from NYC to Buffalo by air, the margin is greatly 

decreased to about 2 – 3 times the cost of the other modes. However, travel time is 2.5 – 3.5 times less 

by air. Given the great distance between NYC and Buffalo, traveling by air is a highly competitive mode 

considering travel time and cost. As a result 51 percent of all trips between New York City and Buffalo 

are made by air, as discussed in Section 3.4.1 Air Trips. In contrast, rail has the greatest travel time, 

more than 3.5 times longer than traveling by air, but only half the cost, as shown in Exhibit B-54. 

Combined with the poor on-time performance and uncompetitive schedules discussed in Section 3.5 

Existing Rail, rail is the least competitive mode between New York and Buffalo, capturing only 2 percent

of all trips. While no mode comes close to being as fast as air in this market, some travelers do need a 

cheaper alternative. With 41 percent of this market, bus clearly bus detracts from rail, when cost, in 

addition to frequency and reliability, not time, is the priority. Bus travel has a slightly shorter overall 

travel time as compared to rail, and is less expensive, at $44 compared to $58. 

Exhibit B-57: Travel Time and Cost for One-Way Trip from Syracuse to Rochester

Source: Amtrak, Google, Orbitz, Expedia, Megabus, Greyhound, Adirondack Trailways

Exhibit B-57 above identifies a shorter trip between Syracuse and Rochester where air travel is not 

available and dynamics between modes are similar in terms of cost. Car has the best price and travel 

time when comparing the modes – and as Exhibit B-58 shows, Car dominates travel between this pair. 

Interestingly though, rail has superior travel time and cost but is a small fraction of travel between these 

markets compared to bus. The major characteristics for this city pair – explaining this ridership 

difference is the level of service and on time performance – with four round trips total for rail and 24 for 

bus and rail On Time Performance (OTP) of less than 60 percent - while bus OTP is likely higher than 85

percent given the number of trips between cities. 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

RAIL CAR BUS

Travel Cost in $

Travel Time in Minutes

SYR-ROC Total Travel Time

SYR-ROC Total Travel Cost

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page B-59

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting 

Frequency of Service and Competitiveness between Transit Modes

Although trip time and cost are perhaps the most important characteristics when evaluating the 

competiveness between modes – frequency of service is a critical determinant of mode utilization – 

particularly when the frequency of service is so low that it eliminates potential markets that other 

modes successfully serve due to their respective service levels. A clear example of this dynamic is 

shown in existing Amtrak service between NYC and Albany which has competitive trip time and cost 

compared to all other modes and competitive level of service – 12 round trips between this particular 

city pair, by comparison, service between city pairs between Albany and Buffalo which have similar 

distances and travel times between rail, bus and car as well as competitive fares between all three 

modes – however rail fails to capture a significant share of any pair market. The only explanation for 

this phenomenon is that rail has significantly less service – only four round trips between the pairs on 

the East-West Corridor that it does not serve the market need to the degree that other modes do. 

Further, poor on-time performance adds to the diminished capacity of rail to serve the travel market 

present.

On Time Performance and Competitiveness between Transit Modes

Similar to Frequency of Service, On-Time Performance (OTP) – is a factor that can diminish the impact of 

competitive travel time and fare on selection of mode of travel. Poor OTP effectively adds to travel time 

– particularly when service is infrequent – causing commuter to have little idea of when they should 

arrive. Further, poor OTP effectively eliminates business travel – as travelers cannot take chance on the 

mode of travel not getting them to their destination around their scheduled time. The East-West 

Empire Corridor has historically low OTP and very extended average delay times – which render the 

competitively priced service ineffective in terms of serving market needs – that bus is better equipped 

to serve. 

Exhibit B-58: Comparative Travel Market : NYMC to Major Markets

NYMTC NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

Air 0 99,443 0 262,706 298,825 507,489 1,168,463

Bus 0 405,460 176,212 266,885 217,272 427,700 1,493,528

Car 0 320,155 19,858 29,787 23,427 29,881 423,108

Rail 0 320,155 19,858 29,787 23,427 29,881 423,108

Total 0 1,145,213 215,929 589,165 562,950 994,951 3,508,207

Source: Amtrak, Google, Orbitz, Expedia, Megabus, Greyhound, Adirondack Trailways

Page B-60 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting Tier 1 Draft EIS 

5.0 Operating Plan Alternatives Studied

This section describes the alternatives that were evaluated and forecasted. The alternatives considered 

are by no means the only potential scenarios available – but an initial test of travel time and schedule 

variables that allow for an understanding of market dynamics to be developed. In order to not only 

evaluate the existing transportation market and establish a no-build baseline context for the Empire 

Corridor, but provide an assessment of a forecasted market under a set of controlled scenarios 

susceptible of modern transportation demand modeling techniques, a set of alternatives was 

established based on previous work from the New York State High Speed Rail 2018 & 2030 Vision.

38 This 

plan was updated to include assumptions for a mostly dedicated third track with alternative maximum 

speeds of 79, 90, and 110 mph and to extend 2030 to the 2035 forecast year. The proposed 2035 

Operating Plan and schedule dramatically increase service on the east-west portion of the Empire 

Corridor between Albany and Niagara Falls from four to 13 round trips as well as increased speed and 

reliability. The Vision was based on a certain set of assumptions relating to improvements on the 

Metro-North Railroad Hudson Line as well as identification of improvements on the East- West portion 

of the Empire Corridor. 

Stated directly, this market study evaluates the comparative competiveness of an updated set of Empire 

Corridor Rail Service Operating Plans versus other competing modes and provides existing and projected 

ridership statistics for the following conditions: 

• 2009 - Existing Conditions

• 2012 - EIS Base Year

• 2018 - 79, 90, and 110 MPH (Maximum Speed, Mostly Dedicated Third Track) (Phase I of Rail 

Service Improvements Completed

• 2035 - 79, 90, and 110 (All Rail Service Improvements Completed)

• 2018/2035 - No Build Scenarios

The forecast development process required that 2009 conditions be forecasted to 2012 to match the 

assumed filing of an EIS from which build and no-build scenarios would be forecast and evaluated. 2012 

data was then forecast to 2018 to create a no-build scenario (this scenario would maintain the existing 

service, speed and assumptions as if rail service had not changed since 2012) as well as maximum 

speeds of 79, 90, and 110 mph. Finally 2012 data was forecast to 2035 for the no-build scenario and 

maximum speed alternatives of 79, 90, and 110. 

38 September 17, 2009 LTK 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page B-61

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting 

5.1 Alternatives Set-up and Assumptions

Schedules provided for 79, 90, and 110 mph Maximum Speed Mostly Dedicated Third Track– for 2018 

and 2035; 

• are all associated with dedicated third track alternatives along most (but not all) of the Corridor 

between Hoffmans and Buffalo. 

• reflect maximum speeds for segments not constrained by curves. 

• are not average speeds but max allowable speeds. The schedule provided determined the 

average speed and time. 

• 

The differences between 2018 and 2035 operating plan and model inputs include:

• Scheduling Changes

o Frequency of services – number of trains

o Changes in intermediate destinations

• Change in the socio-economic attributes (population, household, employment)

5.1.1 Study Years

For the purpose of the study three bench mark years were taken into consideration, 2012, 2018 and 

2035. Whereas 2012 is considered the base year of the study, 2018 is considered the beginning of the 

service improvement and 2035 the end of the service improvement. Under both 2018 and 2035 three 

maximum operating speeds, 79 mph, 90 mph and 110 mph have been considered along with a no-build 

option.

The base year for the study is 2012, a projection of 2009 into the future. There is no change in the rail 

operations during this period in terms of speed, schedule and or frequency. The only change factored in 

the 2012 scenario is the projected change in the socio-economic conditions which have been discussed 

in Section 2. Along with the change in the socio-economic conditions the model factors in the 

associated ambient growth in various modes of transportation.

The 2018 no-build operating plan is again based only on the changes of the socio-economic conditions 

and the ambient growth of in the various modes of transportation. 

The 2018 no-build rail service is calculated with the actual run times plus a built in delay equivalent to 

one standard deviation of the 2009 year delay (based on information obtained from rail operators). 

2018 marks the beginning of an improved service plan based on a dedicated third track which would 

allow for unopposed rail service along this corridor. The schedule developed was based on simulation 

that assumed a perfect run – or a “Golden Run” of one train set.

The 2018 operating plan incorporates changes in the schedule through the entire corridor (as detailed in 

Appendix 2) and built-in delay is reduced to 20 percent of the first standard deviation of 2009 year delay 

to reflect the improved on time performance that is being predicted due to the dedicated third track. 

The model runs to calculate the ridership is based on three scenarios of maximum speed of rail 

operations for 2018; 79 mph, 90 mph, 110 mph.

Page B-62 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting Tier 1 Draft EIS 

The 2035 no-build rail service is calculated with the actual run times plus a built in delay equivalent to 

one standard deviation of the 2009 year delay (based on information obtained from rail operators)

The 2035 operating plan incorporates changes in the schedule and adds frequency (as detailed in 

Appendix 2) and the built in delay is reduced to 20 percent of the first standard deviation of 2009 year 

delay to reflect the improved on time performance that is being predicted due to the dedicated third 

track. The model forecasting here is also based on three scenarios of maximum speed of rail operations 

for 2018; 79 mph, 90 mph, and 110 mph. The 2035, 110 mph operating plan is considered to be the 

peak alternative considered – with the highest average speed and maximum schedule (all 2035 round 

trips are the same).

Differences between Speeds

One of the obvious defining features of the speed labeled alternatives is speed. Each one of the 

maximum speed alternatives 79 mph, 90 mph and 110 mph has a corresponding average speed based 

on the schedule provided – where the scheduled travel time was divided by distance of trip. Exhibit B59 shows an example of the impact of the max speed alternative schedules on actual average speeds 

between NYC and Major Markets on the Corridor. As the exhibit shows – there is not a major difference 

in actual average travel times in any of the alternatives.

Exhibit B-59: Average Speeds by Alternative - NYC to Major Markets

From New York to Actual Average Speed Achieved

Base 79mph 90mph 110mph

Albany 48.39 63.83 63.83 63.83

Utica 45.71 61.54 63.16 64.29

Syracuse 45.19 60.21 62.34 63.47

Rochester 48.61 62.64 65.33 67.06

Buffalo-Ex 48.56 62.05 64.86 66.93

Exhibit B-60: Travel Time By Alternative - Albany to Other Markets 

Westbound from Albany 

to:

Amtrak Train 

281 Fall 2009

79 mph 

max 90 mph max 110 mph max

Amsterdam 0:39 0:35 0:34 0:33

Utica 1:38 1:27 1:21 1:17

Rome 1:53 1:43 1:37 1:32

Syracuse 2:43 2:24 2:14 2:08

Geneva (Branch) 3:25 3:14 3:05

Rochester 3:57 3:35 3:20 3:10

Buffalo Depew 4:57 4:32 4:13 3:59

Buffalo Exchange St 5:11 4:48 4:29 4:15

Niagara Falls 6:20 5:28 5:05 4:51

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page B-63

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting 

These average speeds along with the number of stops along the corridor lead to the following trip times 

between city pairs as shown in Exhibits B-60 and B-61. The maximum speed travel times are compared 

against the 2009 existing condition. The Exhibit shows considerable time savings when considered on 

the whole between existing service and 110 mph alternative – such as Albany to Buffalo Exchange – 

where nearly an hour is saved or 20 percent of travel time. The 125 mph alternative performs better 

still. 

On the longer trips from NYC to East-West Corridor markets – travel time savings are significant – 

offering real competitive advances versus other travel modes serving the corridor. As Exhibit B-61

shows – travel from NYC to Buffalo is over an hour and 5 minutes less under the 110 mph maximum 

versus the existing Amtrak 2009 schedule.

Exhibit B-61: Travel Time By Alternative – New York to Western Corridor Markets

From New York to:

Amtrak Train 281 Fall 

2009 79 mph max 90 mph max 110 mph max

Amsterdam 3:19 3:05 3:04 3:03

Utica 4:18 3:57 3:51 3:47

Rome 4:33 4:13 4:07 4:02

Syracuse 5:23 4:54 4:44 4:38

Geneva (Branch) 5:55 5:44 5:35

Rochester 6:37 6:05 5:50 5:40

Buffalo Depew 7:37 7:02 6:43 6:29

Buffalo Exchange St 7:51 7:18 6:59 6:45

Page B-64 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting Tier 1 Draft EIS 

5.1.2 Differences between train schedules from 2012 to 2018 

and 2035

The other key difference that was input into the model for purposes of forecasting was the difference 

between the number of trains servicing stations in forecast years 2018 and 2035. Exhibit B-62 below 

shows the difference between the forecast years and the baseline. 

Exhibit B-62: Trains Servicing Selected Stations in Forecast years 2012, 2018 and 203539

39 This information was derived from alternative and existing schedules contained in Appendix B.

0

5

10

15

20

25

Base Year &

NoBuild

2018 (all

speeds)

2035 (all

speeds)

Number of Trains

Base Year

Servicing ALB

Servicing SYR

Servicing BUF

Servicing NFL

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page B-65

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting 

6.0 Forecast Results 

6.1 Corridor-wide Ridership

This section discusses ridership projections for 2012, 2018 and 2035 no-build and build alternatives 

along the entire corridor. Between 2009, this study’s existing conditions year, and 2012, the program

based year, rail ridership is expected to increase 4 percent, to 1.3 million riders, as shown in Exhibit B-63

Existing and Projected Ridership. The greatest projected ridership occurs under the 110 mph 

alternatives. With the anticipated population increases and further enhancements in level of service on 

the corridor, the 2035 110 mph scenario projects the greatest ridership gains, with over 2.7 million trips 

as shown in Exhibits B-63 and B-64. This represents a 74 percent increase over the no-build scenario for 

2035, or a difference of almost 1.2 million trips, as shown in Exhibit B-65. Similarly, the 2018 110 mph 

scenario forecasts 1.08 million riders over the 2018 no-build scenario. Overall, every build alternative 

scenario forecasts large ridership gains versus their corresponding no-build scenarios, ranging from 52-

74 percent, shown in Exhibit B-65. 

Exhibit B-63 and Exhibit B-64: Existing and Projected Ridership

Year\Alternatives Base & No-Build 79 90 110 125

2009 1,298,707 NA NA NA

2012 1,346,445 NA NA NA

2018 1,409,899 2,138,961 2,334,490 2,489,350

2035 1,594,824 2,390,352 2,603,173 2,774,500 4,300,000

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

NoBuild 79 90 110

2009

2012

2018 Alternatives

2035 Alternatives

Page B-66 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting Tier 1 Draft EIS 

6.2 Major Market Boardings

This section describes boardings at the six major market stations for 2012, 2018 and 2035 no-build and 

build alternatives. As shown in Exhibits B-65 through B-69 each major station experiences the greatest 

boarding under the 110 mph scenarios; however it varies as to which year, 2018 or 2035, the greatest 

boardings occur. For all major market stations except Albany, the boardings increase from 2018 and 

2035. In contrast, boardings are greater in Albany in 2018 than in 2035 in all alternative scenarios. This 

decline in ridership could be due to a variety of factors, including an anticipated decrease in the core 

population of Albany County as well as employment profiles. This projected decline could be reversed if 

evidence of changes in population projections comes to light or if region specific alternative growth 

scenarios are considered. Despite this decline, Albany remains the second most frequent station for 

boardings in both 2018 and 2035, and the 2018 and 2035 figures indicate a 38 percent and 36 percent

increase over 2009 existing conditions figures, as shown in Exhibit B-68. 

As shown in Exhibits B-66 through B-69 collectively, the western corridor stations of Syracuse, Rochester 

and Buffalo, are projected to experience a far greater change in boardings than New York City, Albany 

and Utica, in both 2018 and 2035, ranging from a 124263 percent increase over the same year no-build 

scenarios. This large percentage increase is to be expected, as currently these cities have low boardings 

due to limited frequency, slow travel time and poor reliability. The schedule enhancements are 

anticipated to increase ridership from these western corridor cities, as reflected by strong ridership 

forecast numbers. 

As can be expected, the greatest increase in the number of boardings in all scenarios occurs in NYC, with 

over 1 million anticipated riders for the 2035 110 mph scenario. This reflects a 148 percent and 177

percent change over 2009 figures shown in Exhibit B-44. In both 2018 and 2035, the greatest percent 

increase in ridership occurs between the 79 and 90 mph scenarios, increasing 8 percent and 7 percent

respectively. Between the 90 mph and 110 mph scenarios, ridership increases 5 percent both years. 

Exhibit B-65: Percent Change in Ridership

Year\Alternatives 79 & No-Build 90 & No-Build 110 & No-Build

2018 52% 66% 77% 

2035 50% 63% 74% 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page B-67

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting 

Exhibit B-70 and Exhibit B-71: 2035 Boardings

Total Boardings NYP ALB UCA SYR ROC BUF

2035- NO BUILD 696,605 309,897 26,422 55,228 60,668 75,776

2035- 79 MPH 942,759 383,219 43,238 139,036 136,010 190,973

2035- 90 MPH 991,414 401,010 47,879 159,755 158,121 241,504

2035- 110MPH 1,026,275 416,012 51,940 176,484 176,144 284,597

Exhibit B-66 and Exhibit B-67: 2018 Boardings

Total Boardings NYP ALB UCA SYR ROC BUF

2018- NO BUILD 615,630 319,356 24,553 50,211 53,556 72,495

2018- 79 MPH 837,956 391,576 41,061 135,312 125,744 178,578

2018- 90 MPH 885,913 408,319 44,840 152,951 144,575 225,887

2018- 110MPH 918,272 422,071 48,572 167,689 160,565 263,478

Exhibit B-68 and Exhibit B-69: 2018 - % Change in 2018 Boardings

% Change NYP ALB UCA SYR ROC BUF

79 & No-Build 36% 23% 67% 169% 135% 146%

90 & No-Build 44% 28% 83% 205% 170% 212%

110 & No-Build 49% 32% 98% 234% 200% 263%

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

NYP ALB UCA SYR ROC BUF

Boardings

2018- NO BUILD

2018- 79 MPH

2018- 90 MPH

2018- 110MPH

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

NYP ALB UCA SYR ROC BUF

% Change

79 & NoBuild

90 & NoBuild

110& NoBuild

Page B-68 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting Tier 1 Draft EIS 

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

NYP ALB UCA SYR ROC BUF

Boardings

2035- NO BUILD

2035- 79 MPH

2035- 90 MPH

2035- 110MPH

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

NYP ALB UCA SYR ROC BUF

% Change

2035-% Change in Boardings

79 & NoBuild

90 & NoBuild

110& NoBuild

Exhibit B-72 and Exhibit B-73: 2035 Boardings

% Change NYP ALB UCA SYR ROC BUF

79 & No-Build 35% 24% 64% 152% 124% 152% 

90 & No-Build 42% 29% 81% 189% 161% 219% 

110& No-Build 47% 34% 97% 220% 190% 276% 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page B-69

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting 

6.3 Major Market to Major Market Ridership

As Exhibits B-70 – B-79 shows, when considering the major market MPO’s and their respective stations 

on the line, ridership consistently increases with speed and time (2018 vs. 2035). 

Under all scenarios, the greatest ridership exists in the NYC – Albany market, however this does not 

represent the greatest percent gain in ridership. From the 2009 existing conditions to the 2035 110 mph 

scenario, ridership in this market pair increases by 27 percent, from approximately 320,000 to 409,009, 

as shown in Exhibits B-63 and B-72. In comparison, Between NYP and Buffalo ridership increases 690

percent under the same time frame and speed parameters, the greatest percent increase between any 

MPO pair. 

In general, the greatest percent ridership gains are always a result of ridership between NYC MPO and 

the Western Corridor (Utica, Syracuse, Rochester and Buffalo). While the greatest gains and overall 

boardings from the NYC MPO to a Western Corridor MPO is from NYC MPO to the Buffalo MPO, 

ridership between the Utica, Syracuse and Rochester MPO’s to the NYC MPO is forecast to greatly 

increase with HSIPR. Rochester to the NYC MPO is projected to have a 419 percent increase, Syracuse 

262 percent, and Utica 86 percent, under the 2035 110 mph scenario, all far greater percentage gains 

than the NYC MPO to the Albany MPO market. 

From a pure boarding perspective, the greatest number of gains is projected to occur in the NYC to 

Buffalo MPO market, increasing by 207,550 annual riders from 2009 to the 2035 110 mph scenario, as 

shown in Exhibit B-63 and B-72. The NYC to Rochester MPO follows behind with an anticipated increase 

of almost 92,000 and Albany follows closely behind Rochester with the third greatest physical gains in 

boardings, expected to reach 89,000. Projections also show the Albany MPO to Buffalo MPO will 

experience a large percentage increase of 416 percent, an increase of over 46,000 boardings per year in 

the 2035 110 mph scenario. 

High percentage gains are projected between western corridor cities, but because of their low existing 

ridership, this does not result in large boardings between these cities as compared to the existing auto 

and bus ridership numbers discussed in Section 4.0. The following is a brief assessment of each of the 

major market to major market Exhibits. 

Page B-70 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting Tier 1 Draft EIS 

As Exhibit B-74 indicates, there were 932,801 rail boardings in 2009 between major markets. The 

greatest number of boardings, 45 percent, involves travel to/from NYC. Albany is the second most 

popular origin/destination, with 37 percent of the total market share. The major market share of any 

one place then drastically drops off, with the Buffalo market comprising 6 percent, the next largest 

major market share.

The most frequented market pair is the NYC - Albany market, constituting over 34 percent of the entire 

2009 rail market. Although the NYC- Buffalo Market has the second greatest number of boardings, it 

only totals 3 percent of the entire Empire Corridor Rail Market, as does the New York to Syracuse 

market Along the western corridor, Albany – Buffalo comprises only 1 percent of the rail market.

Exhibit B-74: Major Market to Major Market Rail Boardings

2009 

Existing 

Conditions

NYC 

MPO*

Albany 

MPO**

Utica 

MPO***

Syracuse 

MPO

Rochester 

MPO

Buffalo 

MPO**** Total

NYC MPO* 0 320,155 19,858 29,787 23,427 29,881 423,108

Albany MPO** 320,155 0 2,082 7,013 8,224 11,133 348,607

Utica MPO*** 19,858 2,082 0 819 1,421 2,480 26,660

Syracuse MPO 29,787 7,013 819 0 1,794 6,466 45,879

Rochester MPO 23,427 8,224 1,421 1,794 0 1,862 36,728

Buffalo

MPO**** 29,881 11,133 2,480 6,466 1,862 0 51,821

Total 423,108 348,607 26,659 45,878 36,728 51,821 932,801

Source: Amtrak 2009

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page B-71

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting 

Base year projections indicate there will be 962,130 rail boardings between major markets in 2012, a 3

percent increase over 2009 figures, as shown in Exhibit B-74. The greatest number of boardings, 45

percent, continues to be for travel to/from NYC. Albany remains the second most popular 

origin/destination, with 36 percent of the total market share. Consistent with 2009 figures, Buffalo 

constitutes the next greatest market share, at 6 percent of the total boardings.

The most frequented market pair is the NYC - Albany market, constituting 33 percent of the entire 2012 

rail market. NYC- Buffalo Market has the second greatest number of boardings, totaling 4 percent of the 

entire Empire Corridor Rail Market, a slight increase over 2009 conditions. Along the western corridor, 

Albany – Buffalo is projected to continue to comprise only 1 percent of the rail market.

Exhibit B-75: 2012 Major Market to Major Market Rail Boardings

2012 

Base Year

NYC 

MPO*

Albany 

MPO**

Utica 

MPO***

Syracuse 

MPO

Rochester 

MPO

Buffalo 

MPO**** Total

NYC MPO* 321,914 20,527 31,101 26,949 37,951 438,442

Albany MPO** 321,914 2,038 6,690 7,785 10,729 349,156

Utica MPO*** 20,527 2,038 813 1,393 2,566 27,337

Syracuse MPO 31,101 6,690 813 1,776 6,659 47,039

Rochester MPO 26,949 7,785 1,393 1,776 2,174 40,077

Buffalo

MPO**** 37,951 10,729 2,566 6,659 2,174 60,079

Total 438,442 349,156 27,337 47,039 40,077 60,079 962,130 

Source:

Page B-72 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Then 2018 No-Build scenario projections indicate there will be 1,018,093 rail boardings between major 

markets, a 5 percent increase over 2012 base – year figures, as shown in Exhibit B-75. The NYC market 

share increases slightly to 46 percent. Albany remains the second most popular origin/destination, but 

loses some of its market share, dropping to 31 percent of the total market over 2012 figures. Buffalo is 

anticipated to continue holding the third greatest market share, while increasing to 8 percent of the 

total boardings.

The most frequented market pair is the NYC – Albany market, constituting 31 percent of the entire 2018 

no-build rail market, a 2 percent drop from the base-year. Meanwhile NYC – Buffalo Market has the 

second greatest number of boardings, increasing to 6 percent of the entire Empire Corridor Rail Market. 

Along the western corridor, Albany – Buffalo is projected to continue to comprise only 1 percent of the 

rail market.

Exhibit B-76: 2018 No-Build Major Market to Major Market Rail Boardings

2018 

No-Build

NYC 

MPO*

Albany 

MPO**

Utica 

MPO***

Syracuse 

MPO

Rochester 

MPO

Buffalo 

MPO**** Total

NYC MPO* 317,570 20,368 31,352 36,767 60,145 466,202

Albany MPO** 317,570 2,041 6,814 8,133 10,784 345,342

Utica MPO*** 20,368 2,041 822 1,448 2,498 27,177

Syracuse MPO 31,352 6,814 822 1,860 6,490 47,338

Rochester MPO 36,767 8,133 1,447 1,860 1,955 50,162

Buffalo 

MPO**** 60,145 10,784 2,498 6,490 1,955 81,872

Total 466,202 345,342 27,177 47,338 50,162 81,872 1,018,093 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page B-73

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting 

As shown in Exhibit B-77, 2018 79 mph projections indicate there will be 1,693,790 rail boardings 

between major markets, a 76 percent increase over 2012 base-year figures, and a 66 percent increase 

over 2018 no-build figures. The NYC market share decreases slightly to 44 percent, as travel between 

other stations is anticipated to increase. Albany remains the second most popular origin/destination, 

but also loses some of its market share, dropping to 26 percent of the total market. Buffalo is 

anticipated to continue to increase its share of the market, comprising 13 percent of the total 2018 79 

mph boardings. This indicates a 261 percent increase, or over 158,000 additional boardings, over baseyear conditions. Projections also anticipate the NYC-Syracuse market will have a great rise in boardings, 

increasing by over 62,000 riders, or 201 percent from base-year projections.

The most frequented market pair is the NYC - Albany market, 22 percent of the entire 2018 79 mph rail 

market. While this indicates a drop in the overall market share, boardings from New York to Albany 

actually increased by 16 percent over 2018 no-build figures, and 14 percent over base – year figures. 

Meanwhile the NYC – Buffalo market has the second greatest number of boardings, increasing to 9

percent of the entire Empire Corridor Rail Market. This is an increase of over 121,000 boardings, 321

percent, over base-year figures. The Albany – Buffalo market is projected to maintain a small market 

share, at 2 percent, yet boardings increases by 23,829, or 222 percent over 2012 figures.

Exhibit B-77: 2018 79 mph Major Market to Major Market Rail Boardings

2018 

79 mph

NYC 

MPO*

Albany 

MPO**

Utica 

MPO***

Syracuse 

MPO

Rochester 

MPO

Buffalo 

MPO**** Total

NYC MPO* 367,100 31,778 93,802 92,778 159,794 745,251

Albany MPO** 367,100 4,144 16,020 16,865 34,558 438,686

Utica MPO*** 31,778 4,144 1,181 2,514 6,812 46,428

Syracuse MPO 93,802 16,020 1,181 2,544 13,579 127,126

Rochester MPO 92,778 16,865 2,514 2,544 3,428 118,128

Buffalo

MPO**** 159,794 34,558 6,812 13,579 3,428 218,171

Total 745,251 438,686 46,428 127,126 118,128 218,171 1,693,790 

Source:

Page B-74 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting Tier 1 Draft EIS 

As shown in Exhibit B-78, 2018 90 mph projections indicate there will be 1,877,430 rail boardings 

between major markets, a 95 percent increase over 2012 base-year figures, and a 84 percent increase 

over 2018 no-build figures. While remaining the most frequented origin/destination, the NYC market 

share decreases slightly to 43 percent, as travel between other stations continues to increase. Albany 

remains the second most popular origin/destination, but also drops to 24 percent of the total market. 

Buffalo continues to increase its market share to 15 percent of the total boardings. This indicates a 365

percent increase, or over 219,000 additional boardings, over base-year conditions. 

NYC-Albany remains as the most frequented market pair, yet drops to 20 percent of all 2018 90 mph 

boardings. Still, this indicates a net increase of 16 percent over 2018 no-build figures, and 14 percent

over base-year figures. The NYC-Buffalo market has the second greatest number of boardings, 

recognizing an increase in the market share, garnering 11 percent of the entire Empire Corridor rail 

market. This is an increase of over 163,000 boardings, 429 percent higher than base-year figures. The 

Albany – Buffalo market continues to have a small overall market share, at 3 percent, but boardings 

between the two cities actually increase by 364 percent over base-year conditions.

ExhibitB-78: 2018 90 mph Major Market to Major Market Rail Boardings

2018 

90 mph NYC 1 Albany 2 Utica 3 Syracuse Rochester Buffalo 4 Total

NYC MPO* 367,268 32,838 102,119 104,482 201,013 807,720

Albany MPO** 367,268 4,817 19,560 21,013 47,003 459,660

Utica MPO*** 32,838 4,817 1,331 3,097 9,534 51,618

Syracuse MPO 102,119 19,560 1,331 2,927 17,693 143,630

Rochester MPO 104,482 21,013 3,097 2,927 4,020 135,539

Buffalo

MPO**** 201,013 47,003 9,534 17,693 4,020 279,263

Total 807,720 459,660 51,618 143,630 135,539 279,263 1,877,430

1

Includes New York Penn, Yonkers and Croton Harman

2

Includes Albany/Rensselaer, Saratoga and Schenectady

3

Includes Utica and Rome

4

Includes Buffalo Exchange, Buffalo Depew and Niagara

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page B-75

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting 

The 2018 110 mph projections indicate there will be 2,022,144 rail boardings between major markets, a 

110 percent increase over 2012 base-year figures, and a 99 percent increase over 2018 no-build figures; 

see Exhibit B-79. As the largest city on the corridor, NYC remains the most popular origin/destination, 

with 43 percent of the entire rail major market boardings. Albany remains the second most popular 

origin/destination, with 24 percent of the total market. Buffalo continues to increase its market share to 

16 percent of the total boardings. This indicates a 443 percent increase, or over 266,000 additional 

boardings, over base-year conditions. 

NYC-Albany remains as the most frequented market pair, with 18 percent of all boardings. Projections 

indicate a net increase of 45,477, in this market, 14 percent greater than base-year figures, but a 

nominal overall increase between the 90 and 110 mph scenarios. The NYC-Buffalo market has the 

second greatest number of boardings, with 11 percent of the entire Empire Corridor rail market. This is 

an increase of almost 193,000 boardings, 507 percent higher than base-year figures. The Albany– 

Buffalo market continues to have a small overall market share, at 3 percent, but boardings between the 

two cities greatly increase by 436 percent over base-year conditions.

Exhibit B-79: 2018 110 mph Major Market to Major Market Rail Boardings

2018 

110 mph NYC 1 Albany 2 Utica 3 Syracuse Rochester Buffalo 4 Total

NYC1 367,391 34,028 108,669 114,396 230,674 855,157

Albany 2 367,391 5,406 22,064 24,432 57,478 476,770

Utica3 34,028 5,406 1,391 3,516 11,876 52,216

Syracuse 108,669 22,064 1,391 3,269 21,928 157,321

Rochester 114,396 24,432 3,515 3,269 4,556 150,168

Buffalo 4 230,674 57,478 11,876 21,928 4,556 326,512

Total 855,157 476,770 56,216 157,321 150,168 326,512 2,022,144 

1

Includes New York Penn, Yonkers and Croton Harman

2

Includes Albany/Rensselaer, Saratoga and Schenectady

3

Includes Utica and Rome

4

Includes Buffalo Exchange, Buffalo Depew and Niagara

Page B-76 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting Tier 1 Draft EIS 

The 2035 no-build projections as shown in Exhibit B-80 indicate there will be 1,077,685 rail boardings 

between major markets, a 12 percent increase over 2012 base – year figures. NYC has the most 

boardings, capturing 46 percent of the market, a 12 percent increase over the base – year. Albany 

remains the second most popular origin/destination, with 33 percent of the total market. Buffalo 

constitutes the next greatest market share, at 6 percent of the total boardings. This indicates a 40

percent increase, or over 24,000 additional boardings over base – year conditions. 

NYC - Albany remains as the most frequented market pair, with 31 percent of all boardings. This 

indicates an increase of 5 percent over base-year figures. The NYC – Buffalo market has the second 

greatest number of boardings, with 6 percent of the entire Empire Corridor rail market. This is a net 

increase of 21,755 boardings, or 57 percent greater than base – year figures. However, this is a net 

decrease of 438 boardings, 1 percent lower, then the 2018 no-build scenario. The Albany – Buffalo 

market is anticipated to decline by 13 percent over base-year conditions under a no-build scenario.

Exhibit B-80: 2035 No-Build Major Market to Major Market Rail Boardings

2035 

No-Build NYC 1 Albany 2 Utica 3 Syracuse Rochester Buffalo 4 Total

NYC1 338,627 22,414 32,425 38,833 59,707 492,005

Albany 2 338,627 1,901 5,835 7,233 9,347 362,944

Utica3 22,414 1,901 807 1,438 2,857 29,416

Syracuse 32,425 5,835 807 4,637 8,273 51,976

Rochester 38,833 7,233 1,437 4,637 4,511 56,560

Buffalo 4 59,707 9,347 2,857 8,273 4,511 84,694

Total 492,005 362,944 29,416 51,976 56,650 84,694 1,077,685

1Includes New York Penn, Yonkers and Croton Harman

2Includes Albany/Rensselaer, Saratoga and Schenectady

3Includes Utica and Rome

4Includes Buffalo Exchange, Buffalo Depew and Niagara

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page B-77

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting 

Projections indicate there will be 1,808,692, rail boardings between major markets under a 2035 79 mph 

alternative. This represents an 87 percent increase over 2012 base-year figures as shown in Exhibit B-75. 

NYC has the most boardings, capturing 44 percent of the market, an 81 percent increase over the baseyear. Albany remains the second most popular origin/destination, with 26 percent of the total market. 

Buffalo constitutes the next greatest market share, at 13 percent of the total boardings, a large market 

share increase over base-year and 2035 no-build scenarios. This is a net increase of almost 170,000 

boardings per year, or 282 percent, over base-year conditions. 

NYC-Albany remains as the most frequented market pair, with 23 percent of all boardings. This indicates 

an increase of 27 percent over base-year figures. The NYC-Buffalo Market has the second greatest 

number of boardings, with 9 percent of the entire Empire Corridor rail market. This is a net increase of 

126,510 boardings, or 333 percent greater than base-year figures. The Albany-Buffalo market is 

anticipated to hold only 2 percent of the 2035 79 mph market, but will increase by 208 percent, or 

22,415 more boardings than the base-year conditions.

Exhibit B-81 2035 79 mph Major Market to Major Market Rail Boardings

2035 

79 mph NYC 1 Albany 2 Utica 3 Syracuse Rochester Buffalo 4 Total

NYC1 408,510 34,232 91,692 96,535 164,461 795,430

Albany 2 408,510 3,919 14,454 15,935 33,144 475,962

Utica3 34,232 3,919 1,156 2,543 7,818 49,668

Syracuse 91,692 14,454 1,156 5,347 17,643 130,292

Rochester 96,535 15,935 2,543 5,347 6,957 127,317

Buffalo 4 164,461 33,144 7,818 17,643 6,957 230,023

Total 795,430 475,962 49,668 130,292 127,317 230,023 1,808,692

1

Includes New York Penn, Yonkers and Croton Harman

2

Includes Albany/Rensselaer, Saratoga and Schenectady

3

Includes Utica and Rome

4

Includes Buffalo Exchange, Buffalo Depew and Niagara

Page B-78 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting Tier 1 Draft EIS 

As shown in Exhibit B-82, projections indicate there will be 2,006,929 rail boardings between major 

markets under a 2035 90 mph alternative. This represents a 108 percent increase over 2012 base-year 

figures. NYC has the most boardings, capturing 43 percent of the market, a 96 percent increase over the 

base-year. Albany remains the second most popular origin/destination, with 25 percent of the total 

market. Buffalo constitutes the next greatest market share, at 15 percent of the total boardings, a net 

increase of 233,957 boardings per year, or 389 percent, over base-year conditions. 

NYC-Albany remains as the most frequented market pair, with 23 percent of all boardings. This indicates 

an increase of 27 percent over base-year figures. The NYC-Buffalo market has the second greatest 

number of boardings, with 10 percent of the entire Empire Corridor rail market. This is a net increase of 

167,604 boardings, or 441 percent greater than base-year figures. Although the Albany–Buffalo market 

is anticipated to hold only 2 percent of the 2035 90 mph market, the overall boardings for this market 

will increase by 330 percent, or 35,483 more boardings than the base-year conditions.

Exhibit B-82: 2035 90 mph Major Market to Major Market Rail Boardings

2035 

90 mph NYC 1 Albany 2 Utica 3 Syracuse Rochester Buffalo 4 Total

NYC1 408,881 35,799 101,207 110,559 205,556 862,002

Albany 2 408,881 4,598 17,979 20,220 46,212 497,890

Utica3 35,799 4,598 1,306 3,156 11,076 55,934

Syracuse 101,207 17,979 1,306 5,723 23,235 149,449

Rochester 110,559 20,220 3,156 5,723 7,959 147,617

Buffalo 4 205,556 46,212 11,076 23,235 7,959 294,037

Total 862,002 497,890 55,934 149,449 147,617 294,037 2,006,929 

1

Includes New York Penn, Yonkers and Croton Harman

2

Includes Albany/Rensselaer, Saratoga and Schenectady

3

Includes Utica and Rome

4

Includes Buffalo Exchange, Buffalo Depew and Niagara

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page B-79

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting 

As shown in Exhibit B-83, projections indicate there will be 2,166,648 rail boardings between major 

markets under a 2035 110 mph alternative. This represents a 125 percent increase over 2012 base-year 

figures. NYC has the most boardings, capturing 42 percent of the market, a 108 percent increase over 

the base-year. Albany remains the second most popular origin/destination, with 24 percent of the total 

market. Buffalo constitutes the next greatest market share, at 16 percent of the total boardings, a net 

increase of 286,985 boardings per year, or 478 percent, over base-year conditions. 

NYC-Albany remains as the most frequented market pair, while dropping to 19 percent of all boardings 

2035 110 mph boarding. Still, the actual increase in this market is 27 percent over base-year figures. The 

NYC- Buffalo market has the second greatest number of boardings, with 11 percent of the entire Empire 

Corridor rail market. This is a net increase of 199,480 boardings, or 525 percent greater than base-year 

figures. Although the Albany-Buffalo market is anticipated to hold only 3 percent of the 2035 110 mph 

market, the overall boardings for this market will increase by 435 percent, or 46,775 more boardings 

than the base-year conditions. 

Exhibit B-83: 2035 110 mph Major Market to Major Market Rail Boardings

2035 

110 mph NYC 1 Albany 2 Utica 3 Syracuse Rochester Buffalo 4 Total

NYC1 409,082 37,021 107,785 121,555 237,431 912,874

Albany 2 409,082 5,185 20,604 23,876 57,504 516,250

Utica3 37,021 5,185 1,378 3,626 14,047 61,256

Syracuse 107,785 20,604 1,378 6,059 29,154 164,980

Rochester 121,555 23,876 3,625 6,059 8,928 164,043

Buffalo 4 237,431 57,504 14,047 29,154 8,928 347,065

Total 912,874 516,250 61,256 164,980 164,043 347,065 2,166,468 

1

Includes New York Penn, Yonkers and Croton Harman

2

Includes Albany/Rensselaer, Saratoga and Schenectady

3

Includes Utica and Rome

4

Includes Buffalo Exchange, Buffalo Depew and Niagara

Page B-80 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting Tier 1 Draft EIS 

6.4 Maximum Total Ridership Range

Understanding that the model forecasts ridership into future years based on best available data and 

sensitivities for mode selection utilized from other studies rather than developed directly from travel 

market stated user preference surveys – a normal distribution curve stating confidence in a range of 

potential forecasted demand for 110 mph was developed. As Exhibit B-84 shows a one standard 

deviation confidence interval shows demand at approximately 2.25 million riders at the low end and 3.2 

million on the high end. The mean shown is the max 110 alternative ridership forecast in this study at 

approximately 2.79 million riders.

Exhibit B-84: Ridership Forecast Normal Distribution Confidence Bell

6.5 Comparative Mode Analysis 

All factors and sensitivities which were input into the model were performed on a corridor wide basis; 

therefore, the most accurate analysis of the comparative modes of trips has also been done on a 

corridor wide basis. This section assesses rail forecast results in light of forecast results for other travel 

modes and the resulting shifts from one mode of travel to another given shifts in socio-economic factors 

and the resultant changes in rail ridership. Although city pair level changes in travel modes were 

evaluated and forecasts for these results are available in Appendix 3, a detailed assessment of these 

results is not provided in this Section. The is based upon the amount of information, which is extensive 

in nature, blunting the impact of the evaluative process, but as also noted elsewhere in this document – 

because the model is based on generalized sensitivities for mode selection and change rather than 

market to market sensitivities based on user preference surveys – which were not performed, as well as 

34.99%

63.44%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50

Rail Ridership in Millions 

Shade Percentage

2035_110 mph

Bell Curve

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page B-81

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting 

the complexity of subjective assignment of mode output information into MPO level geographies – the 

results have some irregularities not consistent with corridor wide or transportation planning principals 

as developed in evaluation of all the data in this study. Given this backdrop however, trends in smaller 

scale markets follow almost exactly those of the corridor wide trends in shifts from studied competitive 

modes to rail. Appendix 3 describes the irregularities encountered, describes why they may be 

occurring, and directly states what likely adjustments are required to rationalize the entire data set. 

Given the complexities noted above, the whole of the output results from the model are consistent and 

tell a story about how the alternatives would compete with other travel modes compared to the nobuild condition.

It should be understood that this corridor is overwhelmingly auto dominated and that any small shift 

from the auto market (in terms of percentage), can bolster the growth of the other modes. For the 

purpose of this analysis, the study of the combined category of air, bus and rail trips is being termed 

“public transportation” (PT). Analysis of the Exhibit B-85 from the base year 2012 to 2018 to 2035 

shows growth in all modes of travel and therefore in the total travel market. This increase is generally 

based on the growth of the socio-economic conditions such as population and employment throughout 

the whole region. The percentage of trips made on air, bus and rail as compared to the total market 

increases from the base year of 2012 and the no build scenarios in 2018 and 2035, both as a sum and 

individually, signifying general growth of the corridor travel market without any service improvements 

to any of the PT modes.

As shown in Exhibit B-85, for the different scenarios (79 mph, 90 mph and 110 mph maximum operating 

speed) for both the forecast years, 2018 and 2035 it can be concluded that rail mode draws its share 

from all the other modes. Reduction in air trips account for approximately 47.87 percent for rail trips 

growth in 2018 and 48.61 percent for rail trips growth in 2035. Reduction in bus trips account for 

approximately 29.70 percent of the growth whereas the reduction in the auto traffic accounts for 22.43

percent of the growth of rail trips (comparison for 2035, 110 mph service option). 

Page B-82 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Exhibit B-85 2035 90 mph Major Market to Major Market Rail Boardings

Corridor wide All to All Trips and Percentages- All Scenarios

MODE SHARE FOR EACH SCENARIO-NUMBER OF TRIPS MODE SHARE FOR EACH SCENARIO-PERCENTAGE

YEAR CAR RAIL BUS AIR TOTAL YEAR CAR RAIL BUS AIR TOTAL

2009 210,977,488 1,298,706 4,593,637 2,411,033 219,280,865 2009 96.213% 0.592% 2.095% 1.100% 100.00%

2012 212,177,650 1,346,466 5,677,047 2,466,640 221,667,803 2012 95.719% 0.607% 2.561% 1.113% 100.00%

2018 NB 217,523,410 1,409,954 5,367,642 2,422,387 226,723,393 2018 NB 95.942% 0.622% 2.367% 1.068% 100.00%

2018 79 MPH 217,366,490 2,139,001 5,159,785 2,058,118 226,723,393 2018 79 MPH 95.873% 0.943% 2.276% 0.908% 100.00%

2018 90 MPH 217,311,208 2,334,521 5,112,698 1,964,965 226,723,393 2018 90 MPH 95.849% 1.030% 2.255% 0.867% 100.00%

208 110 MPH 217,263,088 2,489,382 5,073,216 1,897,707 226,723,393 208 110 MPH 95.827% 1.098% 2.238% 0.837% 100.00%

2035 NB 230,454,881 1,595,021 7,798,863 2,701,574 242,550,340 2035 NB 95.013% 0.658% 3.215% 1.114% 100.00%

2035 79 MPH 230,302,244 2,390,539 7,551,050 2,306,506 242,550,340 2035 79 MPH 94.950% 0.986% 3.113% 0.951% 100.00%

2035 90 MPH 230,243,037 2,603,352 7,494,250 2,209,701 242,550,340 2035 90 MPH 94.926% 1.073% 3.090% 0.911% 100.00%

2035 110 MPH 230,190,311 2,774,683 7,448,486 2,136,861 242,550,340 2035 110 MPH 94.904% 1.144% 3.071% 0.881% 100.00%

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page B-83

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting 

6.5.1 Corridor wide Trips by Comparative Travel Modes

The analysis of trips between the no-build scenarios in 2018 and 2035 and the 79mph, 90mph and 110 

mph service options for each of these years shows a trend of increasing rail ridership and a decrease in 

all the other three modes of travel, air, auto and bus, (see Exhibits B-86 and B-87) signifying that the 

service improvements proposed are leading up to rail being more competitive against each of the other 

modes of travel.

Exhibit B-86: Market Share Changes in Air, Bus & Rail as % of Total Travel Market-2018

Exhibit B-87: Market Share Changes in Air, Bus & Rail as % of Total Travel Market-2035

0.622%

0.943% 1.030%

1.098%

2.367% 2.276% 2.255%

2.238%

1.068%

0.908%

0.867% 0.837%

0.000%

0.500%

1.000%

1.500%

2.000%

2.500%

2018 NB 2018 79MPH 2018 90MPH 208 110MPH

RAIL

BUS

AIR

0.658%

0.986% 1.073% 1.144%

3.215%

3.113% 3.090%

3.071%

1.114%

0.951% 0.911%

0.881%

0.000%

0.500%

1.000%

1.500%

2.000%

2.500%

3.000%

3.500%

2035 NB 2035 79MPH 2035 90MPH 2035 110MPH

RAIL

BUS

AIR

Page B-84 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting Tier 1 Draft EIS 

The following set of Exhibits identify how the 110 mph alternative draws from other markets to build 

ridership in both 2018 and 2035. Only 110 is shown here as the relationship trends identified below 

hold under all options. Despite growth in the absolute numbers of rail trips between the 2018 NB-2018, 

110 mph and 2035 NB-2035, 110 mph (1,079,428 for 2018 and 1,179,661 for 2035) the growth rate of 

the rail trips as percentage of the overall market for the same situation is slightly more in 2018 than in 

2035 (76% for 2018 and 74% for 2035) (See Exhibits B-88 & B-90). This indicates that the reduced travel 

time along the corridor has more effect on ridership than increased frequency of service. Also this 

decrease can be attributed to the loss of ridership due to the likely continued dispersed population 

growth in the Albany, Utica, Syracuse, Rochester and Buffalo market which would eventually lead to 

lesser propensity of the population base in these areas to use the rail service as compared to auto.

With increase in speed within each of the service years, 2018 and 2035, rail trips have drawn more from 

air trips followed by bus trips and ultimately the auto trips as shown in Exhibit B-89. Evaluating Exhibit

B-88 and B-90 compared to the baseline, air ridership shows a decline of 22 percent and 21 percent

respectively for the years 2018 and 2035, between the no-build scenarios and the 110 mph service 

options. Similarly the bus ridership shows a decline of 5.5 percent and 4.5 percent and the auto 

ridership a decline of 0.12 percent and 0.11 percent. Despite the modest decline in auto ridership it is 

clear that enhancements in rail service are dampening growth in auto trips and thereby keeping 

Thruway congestion at bay. 

Exhibit B-88: 2018 Changes in Mode Share for 110 mph Alternative

2009 Existing 

Condition 2018Base (no HSR) 2018 with 110 mph Base to 110 2018 Mode Conversion

Mode Annual 

Trips

Share

%

Annual 

Trips

Share

%

Annual 

Trips

Share

%

Percent 

Change Trips % Share Conversion

Car 210,977,488 96.2 217,523,410 95.94 217,263,088 95.83 -0.12% -260,322 -24.12% 

Air 2,411,033 1.10 2,422,387 1.07 1,897,707 0.84 -21.66% -524,680 -48.61% 

Bus 4,593,637 2.09 5,367,642 2.37 5,073,216 2.24 -5.49% -294,426 -27.28% 

Rail 1,298,706 0.59 1,409,954 0.62% 2,489,382 1.10 76.56% 1,079,428 100.00% 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page B-85 

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting 

Exhibit B-89: 2018 - Market Relationship between Rail Trips and other Modes under 110 mph 

Alterative 

Exhibit B-90: 2035 Changes in Mode Share for 110 mph Alternative

2009 Base Year 2035 no HSR 2035 with 110 mph Base to 

110

2035 Mode 

Conversion

Mode Annual 

Trips

Share 

%

Annual 

Trips

Share 

%

Annual

Trips

Share

%

Percent 

Change Trips % of Total

Car 210,977,488 96.21 230,454,880 95.01 230,190,310 94.90 -0.11% -264,570 -22.43

Air 2,411,033 1.10 2,701,574 1.11 2,136,860 0.88 -20.90% -564,714 -47.87

Bus 4,593,637 2.09 7,798,863 3.22 7,448,486 3.07 -4.49% -350,377 -29.70

Rail 1,298,706 0.59 1,595,021 0.66 2,774,682 1.14 73.96% 1,179,661 100.00

Exhibit B-91: 2035 - Market Relationship between Rail Trips and other Modes under 110 mph 

Alterative 

-60.00%

-40.00%

-20.00%

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

100.00%

120.00%

Car Air Bus Rail

Car

Air

Bus

Rail

-60.00%

-40.00%

-20.00%

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

100.00%

120.00%

Car Air Bus Rail

Car

Air

Bus

Rail

Page B-86 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting Tier 1 Draft EIS 

6.5.2 Major Market Pair Analysis

Within the corridor there are three distinctive sub categories with different service characteristics in 

terms of the different modes of travel. The subcategories are as follows:

• NYC- Albany, 

• NYC-West of Albany; and 

• Albany – Areas west of Albany.

NYC-Albany

The improved rail service from the base year 2012 to 2018, 110 service options and 2035, 110 mph 

service reduced the travel times most in the corridor west of Albany. There is no change in travel time 

in the NYC- Albany market between 2018 and 2035 and between the different maximum operating 

speed options. This basically freezes the growth of the rail ridership for the years 2018 and 2035 

irrespective of the operating plan. Though there is an increase in the total rail ridership between 2018 

and 2035 reflecting the background growth of population and employment and the added frequency of 

service for all of the 2035 service options, rail as a percentage of the PT mode decreases due to this 

stagnation of the travel times between the NYC market and the Albany market. Any shift from the auto 

mode is primarily captured by the bus and the air modes. As has been mentioned previously the 

ridership trends are more sensitive to the travel times than the frequency of service and hence between 

2018 and 2035 rail becomes less competitive (in terms of percentage share of the market) and both air 

and bus increase their market share.

NYC- West of Albany 

This market shows a significant savings in the travel times which is reflected in the growth of the rail 

ridership along this corridor, both in terms of percentage of the total market and percentage of the PT 

mode. Rail ridership growth is accompanied by decline almost similar to the sum of the decline of trips 

by bus and air, thereby signifying only a modest draw from the auto mode – which is already a small 

percentage of the existing mode share. The rail ridership percentage as compared to both the total 

market and the PT mode increases by almost 400 percent when comparing the no-build and the 110

mph service option for both 2018 and 2035. Analysis show that in this segment rail trips compete 

favorably with bus trips in terms of costs and speed and the very favorably with air mode in terms of 

cost and to reduced differential in travel time and schedule from rail enhancements.

NYC- Buffalo Market

The NYC- Buffalo market shows a travel time reduction of approximately 35 percent from the base run 

times and an increased frequency which provides for 12 round trips compared to four under the base 

condition. This translates to an increase in the rail trips between the two markets by almost 300 percent

which is accompanied by a decline equivalent to the sum of the decline in air and bus ridership. This 

signifies that the improved rail service has minimal total reduction in auto trips between these two 

markets which is currently at 40,000 annual trips. For 2035, 110 mph service option, the improved 

service combined with total origin to destination travel times and associated costs for a rail trips 

becomes competitive with time and cost associated with bus and air, thereby leading to the shift from 

these two modes to rail.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page B-87 

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting 

As mentioned above, the Albany-West of Albany Market shows a significant decrease in the travel 

times due to the improved service. This is reflected in the increase in the rail ridership which is 

accompanied by reduced bus trips and auto trips. With the improved rail ridership the rail mode 

increases significantly as a percentage of the PT mode (215% for 2018 and 265% for 2035). Even though 

there is reduction in the auto trips, auto remains the overwhelming choice of travel along this corridor 

which can be attributed to the dispersed population distribution, lack of connectivity to the rail stations 

and low congestion levels which make road travel an easy option. With only 80-100 miles separating 

some of the major markets along this corridor, car travel still holds a strong position to rail travel which 

connects travelers between their ultimate origin and destination in a more efficient and expedient 

fashion. An enhanced transit linkage plan and localized station development would engender greater 

localized station to station trips along the East-West Corridor.

Page B-88 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting Tier 1 Draft EIS 

7.0 Sensitivity Tests 

A series of basis sensitivity test were run to evaluate the impact of change in key input characteristics for 

the HSIPR Alternatives studied. A change in magnitude of variables for population and employment, 

travel time, and competitive cost changes were run and resulting ridership changes evaluated. 

Exhibit B-92 below identifies a generalized trend relationship between reduction in travel times and 

corresponding forecasted increases in ridership. This trend was extrapolated by observing the impact of 

assumed reduction in travel time from NYC to Buffalo based on the alternatives studied and then 

extending that curve based on the trend identified from those data points. This trend was then applied 

to the entire corridor to extrapolate a corridor wide assessment of the impact of time savings. As the 

trend line shows, the 110 mph speed is a 30 percent reduction in travel time for trips to Buffalo and 

represents a similar result in travel time for other trips where most of the ridership gains are accruing – 

namely between NYC and city pairs on the East-West Corridor and this travel time gain results in 

approximately 2.75 million riders. Extrapolating from this relationship, a corresponding 40 percent

reduction in travel time or average speed of 80 mph - 40 percent greater than the no-build would result 

in nearly 3.25 million riders.

Exhibit B-92: Trends in Travel Time and Ridership

The following section indicates a variety of competitive mode cost sensitivities. What the Exhibit clearly 

shows is that auto cost are highly inelastic – meaning major changes in travel costs such as an increase 

of 25 percent and no corresponding increase in cost for rail will not accrue an increase in boardings for 

no builds (avg. 48.56 

mph)

79 mph ( avg 62.05 mph) 

90 mph ( avg 64.86 mph)

110 mph (avg. 66.93 mph)

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

4,000,000

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Rail Ridership

Percentage Reduction in Travel Time

2018 Rail Ridership

2035 Rail Ridership

Expon. (2018 Rail

Ridership )

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page B-89 

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting 

rail. Higher airfares however are highly sensitive and on a percent for percent relationship 1, a 1 percent 

increase in air cost results in a 1 percent increase in rail ridership.

Exhibit B-93: Comparative Cost Sensitivity Tests 40

40 Auto Operating Cost Assumptions: 0.1674 $/miles

41 California High Speed Rail Market Study – 2008 

Sensitivity Test Cost Changes Boardings (% change from base)

NYHSR CAHSR 41

Higher HSR Fares 25% Increase -15% -13%

Higher Air Fares 25% Increase 23% NA

Higher Auto Cost and Tolls 25% Increase in both 0% NA

Combined Higher HSR and 

Higher Air/Auto Costs

25% Increase in fares and 50% increase 

in air and auto cost 12% 13%

50% Increase in rail fares and air and 

auto cost

7% 31%

100% increase in fares, 50% increase in 

air/car cost -2% -6%

Page B-90 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting Tier 1 Draft EIS 

8.0 Revenue Forecast

Exhibit B-94 displays the forecasted revenue for each of the no build and build scenarios. By 2018, 

revenue based on the three alternative build scenarios (79, 90 and 110) will range from 66 - 97 percent

greater than the corresponding No-Build condition, as shown in Exhibit B-86; and in 2035 it will range 

from 64 - 94 percent greater than the corresponding No-Build condition. Along with the greatest 

projected ridership, the greatest projected revenue is for the 2035 110 mph scenario, which at $92.5 

million is 94 percent greater than the projected 2035 no-build revenue. The revenue results are 

calculated from current average fares between each station pair times the ridership. A net reduction of 

10 percent could be applied to account for discounted rates for regular users and promotions. 

The key to evaluating these forecasts however is not in the numbers themselves but by a cost benefit 

type analysis that considers operating and maintenance costs and annualized capital costs over a 10 or 

20 year time frame.

Exhibit B-94: Revenue Forecast by Alternative and Build Year

Base Year & NB 79 mph 90 mph 110 mph

2009 $50,042,203 n/a n/a n/a

2012 $51,784,687 n/a n/a n/a

2018 $55,892,489 $92,676,100 $102,580,612 $110,324,789

2035 $62,547,008 $102,442,809 $113,114,855 $121,578,490

Exhibit B-95: Revenue Forecast by Alternative and Build Year

% Change 2018 2035

79 & No-Build 66% 64%

90 & No-Build 84% 81%

110 & No-Build 97% 94%

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page B-91 

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting 

9.0 Conclusions 

9.1 Market Observations

This final section summarizes key observations related to the overall forecast results as well as specific 

observations related to the major markets and the behavior of the other competitive modes in the face 

of improvements to Empire Corridor. The first and most important observation this report has identified 

is that a considerable market exists for the set of improved speeds and travel schedule alternatives 

studied in this report. This finding however is not unexpected, as similar improvements to the Amtrak 

Keystone Corridor yielded strong ridership growth resulting from enhanced speed and level of service. 

Under that project, completed in 2006, Amtrak and Pennsylvania DOT improved this 104 mile portion of 

the overall 394 mile corridor to top speeds of 110 mph and resulted in 20 percent year over year gains in 

ridership in both 2007 and 2008 – with ridership increasing to 1.2 million from about 850,000. However 

the success of these numbers must be evaluated in light of the cost – $145,000 and a resultant 

reduction in operational subsidy of 28 cents per passenger mile to 20 cents per passenger mile.42 The 

Empire Corridor by comparison is 463 miles long and suffers from greater delays and considerably lower 

ridership by mile than the Keystone Corridor prior to completion of upgrades. Further comparison 

shows that similar speed and level of service upgrades would result in substantially greater ridership 

gains from 1.4 million under the no-build to 2.48 million 2018 build year for the 100 mph alternative or a 

56 percent increase in ridership in the initial year. However, these comparative results should be taken 

in perspective – the Empire Corridor is nearly five times the size (compared to the Harrisbury to 

Philadelphia segment of the Keystone Corridor) and services 17 stations, is anchored to the largest 

metropolitan market in America and services five cities with nearly 100,000 or more persons. This 

comparison indicates that the Empire Corridor has significant potential and that this potential is not only 

untapped in its current state but the alternatives considered in this report may not have uncovered all 

of the potential demand in this corridor – however this is to be expected in an initial base demand 

market forecast. The section following will discuss possibilities to evaluate and expand the ridership 

potential in further investigations.

9.2 Empire Corridor - Key Market Characteristics Observations

It should first be noted that the alternatives studied should not be understood as traditional high speed 

rail alternatives. The average speeds and number of stops considered in the alternatives falls into an 

enhanced speed and service class of traditional Amtrak service – and perhaps the logical next step for 

this corridor which connects NYC – the economic engine of the U.S. to a region that has been recovering 

from decades of decline after the fall of manufacturing economies in the U.S. However it is important to 

revisit the success benchmarks identified for HSR at the beginning of this report to offer a perspective 

from which to evaluate the Empire Corridor as imagined under the various alternatives forecasted. The 

first characteristic identified was speed – those corridors between 90 mph and 110 mph were identified 

as emerging HSR, while those between 110 mph and 150 mph were classified as regional HSR, with over 

160 mph as express HSR. The problem with these definitions is that they refer to max speeds – as does 

this study – rather than average speeds identified by time it takes to get from station to station in a 

certain travel time. As noted in this report, the optimal 110 mph max alternative studied actually only 

runs at an average speed of 68 mph. The second characteristic of HSR noted is distance between 

42 http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/09/28/learning-from-the-keystone-corridor/ 

Page B-92 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting Tier 1 Draft EIS 

stations – for emerging HSR at speeds of 90 to 110 mph – the benchmark distance is a minimum of 100 

miles and optimal distance of 200 miles and a max distance of 500 miles between stations. The Empire 

Corridor has 17 stations on its run, with the longest distance between two stations at 80 miles. The 

third key characteristic is the presence of congestion in airspace and roadways serving the corridor. The 

Empire Corridor has a heavily congestion airspace but a minimally congested roadway corridor that runs 

the entire length of the rail corridor studied. The fourth key is presence in a mega-region serving cities 

with high GDP’s. The Empire Corridor is located in the largest mega-region and although many of the 

upstate cities served are underperforming economies – the economies of the major markets are quite 

large – a function of their sizes. Finally, the fifth key characteristic is the presence of regional transit 

linkages – to connect station areas to suburban markets and key destinations. On the Empire Corridor, 

there are robust major market bus transit systems – however they are not generally optimally oriented 

to connect to station areas – as current Amtrak service on the corridor is modest. 

Evaluating this comparison, it is clear first that average speeds considered in this study are short of other 

comparable emerging HSR programs due to alignment constraints and operational constraints imposed 

by CSX. Further, given the overall length of this corridor – speeds are not truly optimal to gain maximum 

market share. In terms of distance between stations, whether or not this corridor is considered an 

emergent high speed rail corridor is unimportant – 17 stations are too many to function effectively as a 

regional intercity passenger service, this corridor can capture more riders at key stations by removing 

stops and reducing travel time – recommendations for further consideration are in the following 

section. It is clear that the Empire corridor is unique - although it has regional coverage and the purpose 

of HSR programs is to affect regional intercity travel – the number of stations present on the corridor 

and the schedules considered to link them make the corridor halfway between a commuter corridor and 

halfway between a regional intercity corridor. As a result, to capture optimal ridership it needs to serve 

both its two intercity corridors NYC to Albany and Albany to Buffalo locally between the paired markets 

within each corridors limits while serving the regional corridor market pairs – or the Buffalo, Rochester, 

Syracuse to NYC pairs. These service needs exist in near mutual exclusivity on the same corridor and 

require different considerations to make each type of service successful. In terms of congestion on the 

corridor, it is clear that the improvements in rail are taking advantage of air congestion while losing to 

the lack of auto-congestion on Thruway. In terms of transit connections-the ability to capture the 

heavily distributed and suburbanized populations surrounding station areas would optimize the rail 

corridor’s improvement program and create additional economic impact opportunities at both receiving 

and sending transit zones. This would require extension of county and regional transit system to 

support inter-regional linkages to transit facilities or require the development of a dedicated corridor 

bus system – similar to that operated by New Jersey Transit to support the rail network. Further, in 

terms of the business of modeling and forecasting rail ridership – a plan for such linkages would 

effectuate the capture of this market by widening the competitive influence of the station zone. 

9.3 Tale of Three Corridors: Rationalizing and Positioning the 

Corridor with a Dual Approach

Given the forecast results and the above analysis – to ask what the Empire Corridor should be or could 

be – it is necessary to see what it is through how it functions in light of the modes that serve its subcorridors and major market areas. Rationalizing the corridor in terms of transportation market position 

is a study of evaluating a form of applied geometry between nodes – the method of traversing this 

geometry is a behavioral choice subject to three influence variables - duration, frequency, and cost. 

Although there exist a “halo” of other influences – mentioned later in this section – these variables form 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page B-93 

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting 

a “decision calculus” that govern how a market performs under the constraints of various modes 

operating within the market geometry. For the purpose of this analysis – there are really three corridors 

within the Empire Corridor – each of these corridors has specific geometries and applied influences that 

will determine what mode will be most successful based on their characteristics

9.3.1 NYC to Albany

This 150 mile corridor is served by rail, bus, air, and auto service. Most of the trips on the inside the 

corridor are either to NYC or to Albany rather than connections to the small cities and towns within the 

corridor. The length of this trip is best served by the more efficient mode of travel – in this case, auto, 

rail, and bus – the trip length is simply too short for air travel with its complex access and egress 

components to be successful here. The corridor is already 110 mph enabled but is subject to limitations 

in geometry, control by the Metro North Railroad on the southern tier and CSX on its northern tier, and 

by train storage at Penn Station limiting the number of departures. As noted in the body of this report – 

all alternatives performed in the study result in only limited enhancements in travel time between 

Albany and NYC and therefore growth in ridership within this sub-corridor is limited. However there is a 

travel market of at least 2.8 million roundtrips of which rail captures slightly above 10 percent. For rail 

to capture greater market share in service of this market from dominant auto mode or the highly 

competitive bus market that has twice the number of existing patrons compared to rail – it must either 

increase speed, reduce the number of stops along the corridor, add service, or offer a host of other 

compelling factors referred to as “halo” influences which were not investigated in detail for this report. 

Service enhancements are currently constrained by storage limitation (the parameters of this study did 

not offer a sensitivity test for level of service – and there are limited differences in schedule considered 

for this portion of the corridor), and rail travel cost is competitive to both auto and bus and lowering 

cost of rail was shown in this study to be highly inelastic in terms of shifting demand from auto. The key 

is simply to get from major boardings market to major boardings market as fast as possible to be more 

competitive against auto and bus. The existing conditions section showed that total travel time from 

origin to destination for auto is 167 minutes while rail is 190 minutes (includes wait, access/egress, and 

allowance for OTP). The simplest way to do this and achieve modest speed gains is to provide express or 

limited express service. Removing four stops could save approximately 15 to 20 minutes. It is uncertain 

as to whether this will have the desired effect – as express service introduces a trade off with a loss off 

ridership at other stations. Further, it is uncertain as to whether a 10 to 15 percent reduction in travel 

time would “flip the switch” from bus and auto riders and result in increased ridership. It is worth 

exploring this dynamic further as the potential market is large, and the reductions in travel time 

required being more competitive are modest compared to the rest of the corridor. 

Additional factors that could improve this sub-corridors ridership are transit linkages to metro-Albany’s 

expansive suburban region, localized station area employment or population growth or some form of 

development of regional significance. Others efforts such as marketing the corridor, direct selling 

tickets and offering various travel packages may enhance ridership as well. External factors such as 

enduring rising fossil fuel costs – such as are currently being experienced may also have a significant 

impact on ridership increases. 

Page B-94 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting Tier 1 Draft EIS 

9.3.2 Albany MPO to Buffalo MPO

This 300 mile sub-corridor seemingly should have the greatest rail market potential – with several 

medium sized cities, distances between stations better spaced, and with a very large travel market 

dominated by auto travel it is well positioned to compete against other modes. The same elements 

however are present here as in the NYC to Albany MPO Corridor. Although the improvements to level 

of service, travel time, and reliability are extensive and are the engine for the overall corridors large 

gains in ridership - the market is so large – about 20 million trips intra-corridor that there should be 

more that can be done to capture travel market share. Although the gains in ridership forecast are 

significant – from only 80,000 of 1.2 million rides on the Empire Corridor in 2009 to 280,000 rides 

forecast for the 110 mph 2035 or over a 300 percent gain in ridership, it is only 1.4 percent of the 

potential market. The key in this lack of mode share capture is the basic geometry of the corridor, space 

between stops and the presence of an uncongested Thruway that provides quick auto trips between the 

city pairs on this sub-corridor and quickly connects auto users from the origin to their destination – 

whether it be to center-cities or to the heavily dispersed populations that make up each major market 

on the corridor. While distances between city pairs may average between 60 to 80 miles apart – each 

market comprises about 30 miles in radius around the station area or a third to a quarter of the direct 

station to station distance. Given this situation, the solution is similar to the NYC MPO to Albany MPO 

approach. The farther each city pair is apart – the greater ability of rail to compete against auto and 

bus. Therefore, express service focusing on the major markets, namely, Albany to Buffalo with stops 

perhaps at both Syracuse and Rochester or alternatively between them. The ridership results revealed 

that there was not a significant increase in ridership between the 2018 and 2035 for the 79 mph, 90 

mph, and 110 mph alternatives on this sub-corridor. The differences between 2018 and 2035 schedules 

– from 7 round trips to 12 indicates that an increase in frequency of service has a declining rate of return

and that perhaps express service could replace some of these round-trips with stops at eight stations 

between the Albany and Buffalo MPO’s. Removing up to five cities for express or limited express could 

save an additional 25 minutes – however those gains may result in an offsetting loss of ridership due to 

the bypass of other stations. This relationship should be further studied as should additional 

enhancements to the corridor to further increase speed. Significant additional reductions in travel time 

would likely result in a much greater percentage of auto-trips being captured – however for the shorter 

pair trips – further reductions travel time would need to be very large perhaps an additional 30 or 40

percent. Alternatively, it is possible that more frequent service – headways of 30 minutes or less 

between shorter pairs may result in additional ridership – such as Rochester to Buffalo Exchange or 

Syracuse to Rochester. Such considerations may warrant further evaluation. 

Finally, additional factors, as noted above in the NYC MPO to Albany MPO section such as strong land 

use policies for station surroundings backed by economic incentives, with facility improvements to 

maximize security and sense of place supported by new intra-regional transit connections to link 

stations to the suburban areas easily accessed by automobile would likely enhance ridership 

significantly.

9.3.3 NYC to Buffalo

NYC to Buffalo is a representation for long trips ranging the entire corridor. Trips this length have 

greater similarity to emerging HSR –and could be designed to take advantage of the benchmark keys to 

HSR – namely strong dominance against the air market.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page B-95

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting 

The forecast results show that the longer the trip on the corridor, the greater the impact of the 

alternatives studied on travel time reductions, resulting in greater increases in ridership. Long Trips on 

the Empire Corridor – or trips that connect pairs such as NYC to Buffalo, NYC to Rochester, and NYC to 

Syracuse – account for about 60 percent of all growth forecast in all of the build alternative speeds 

studied. These pairs capture about 20 percent of the air market and 5 percent of the -bus market on the 

corridor. Auto is a small amount of the total trips between NYC and the major markets on the western 

portion of the corridor. Trips from one end of the corridor to the other, although different from the 

two constituent corridors discussed above which are composed of considerable intra-corridor ,travel 

captures its market less on frequency of service but more on trip time. Combining the two express or 

limited express approaches with a total of approximately four or five stops from NYC to Buffalo could 

eliminate the in station wait time and acceleration and deceleration time loss from stops at 10 stations 

and cut 50 minutes in travel time from the trip from NYC to Buffalo – almost equal to the time savings 

for the 110 mph option. This would likely have a dramatic effect on ridership and capture an additional 

significant portion of air and bus travel.

9.3.4 Combining Service Planning Approach with a Whole 

Market Approach 

The rail service approach suggested above is fairly straightforward - add express service to the corridor 

and dovetail such service with a large “local” service to maintain the smaller markets and add mobility 

options for the entire corridor. This approach combined with a “whole market” approach – that 

perceives successful rail service being considered in step with the points which it connects and the 

market from which it draws. This means while enhancing rail service, concurrent enhancements to land 

use policy to support rail service must be implemented concurrently with the enhancement of transit 

linkages to bring a market to rail – particularly in this market dominated by old manufacturing cities with 

declining urban cores and growing suburban low density sprawl. The long term goal is to bring people 

and jobs closer to transit connections – by investing and incentivizing investment in development 

proximate to stations. Along with rail – The Empire Corridor development program would conceptually 

include four plans – an operating plan, a transit plan, a land use plan, and a policy plan to incentivize 

integrated planning and development.

9.4 Further Considerations

This section briefly details additional considerations that can or should be made to support this Study’s 

findings, the Tier 1 EIS and future Tier 2 EIS as well as the entire NYSHSIPR Program.

Additional Operational Considerations for Evaluation

A maximum average speed should be modeled to clearly establish a trend relationship between speed 

and ridership growth. 

Schedule alterations should be considered to provide for express service or limited express service for

• NYC to Albany with stops at Hudson or Rhinecliff

• Albany to Buffalo with stops at Syracuse and/or Rochester

• NYC to Buffalo with stops at Hudson or Rhinecliff , Albany, Syracuse and/or Rochester

• 

Page B-96 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Additional Markets for Consideration

Toronto and Quebec should be considered as additions to the corridor with the determination of the 

impact it would have on corridor ridership – either as a model input or a more informal evaluation. It is 

possible that the addition of Toronto will transform the Western portion of the corridor and breed 

significant additional leisure travel between NYC and Toronto market. Clearly such a study would have 

to consider additional speed to make an impact.

Census – Population / Job Growth Update

The availability of the 2010 census data and questions about growth rates used at certain locations in 

the corridor based on commercial projections – it may be worthwhile to evaluate a population and job 

growth sensitivity test that evaluates the impact of a broader range of low medium and high growth 

scenarios for each of the major markets. The new census would certainly aid in clarifying the socioeconomic profile for the market study.

Economic Impacts

In order to capture a full picture of both ridership growth and economic benefits beyond fare box 

recovery and to put capital and O/M cost investments in perspective for those who will ultimately make 

decisions regarding investment in the Empire Corridor – an economic impacts study defining primary 

and secondary economic impacts stemming from enhanced rail service is strongly suggested. Often 

public investment in transit is not given a fair evaluation in terms of return on public investment – often 

the results are quite surprising and can greatly facilitate the development of support for a project.

Cost Benefit Analysis

A cost to benefit style assessment should be performed in order to define which alternative studied 

achieves the goal of gaining the most riders at the best Operating and Maintenance (O/M) per rider mile 

cost and to define the initial and annualized operating cost by alternative. This would allow for a finding 

of revenue and potentially secondary benefits versus both fixed annual O/M costs and annualized 

capital program for all alternative studied.

Land Use, Transportation & Corridor Economic Incentives Plan 

A combined land use, transit and economic policy plan would help frame the rail program in the context 

of a master plan vision for the corridor – ultimately enhancing economic impact and significantly 

bolstering forecasted ridership. Currently such a feedback loop into the model is absent – essentially 

leaving out induced demand from economic impact to the markets served.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page B-97 

New York State Department of Transportation
This page intentionally left blank. 
Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting Tier 1 Draft EIS 

10.0 Appendices

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page B-99 

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting 

10.1 APPENDIX A: Modeling Methodology

Page B-100 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting Tier 1 Draft EIS 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page B-101 

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting 

Page B-102 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting Tier 1 Draft EIS 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page B-103 

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting 

Page B-104 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting Tier 1 Draft EIS 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page B-105 

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting 

Page B-106 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting Tier 1 Draft EIS 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page B-107 

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting 

Page B-108 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting Tier 1 Draft EIS 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page B-109 

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting 

Page B-110 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting Tier 1 Draft EIS 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page B-111 

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting 

Page B-112 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting Tier 1 Draft EIS 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page B-113 

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting 

Page B-114 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting Tier 1 Draft EIS 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page B-115 

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting 

Page B-116 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting Tier 1 Draft EIS 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page B-117 

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting 

Page B-118 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting Tier 1 Draft EIS 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page B-119 

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting 

Page B-120 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting Tier 1 Draft EIS 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page B-121 

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting 

Page B-122 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting Tier 1 Draft EIS 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page B-123 

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting 

Page B-124 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
10.2 APPENDIX B: Alternative Operating and Service Plans

10.2.1 Complete List of Sources

Page B-125 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting 

Operating Plans- Empire Service-Eastbound, 2009

Operating Plans- Empire Service-Westbound, 2009

Page B-126 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting Tier 1 Draft EIS 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page B-127

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting 

Operating Plans- Empire Service-Eastbound, 2018

Page B-128 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Operating Plans- Empire Service-Westbound, 2018

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page B-129

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting 

Operating Plans- Empire Service-Eastbound, 2035

Page B-130 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Operating Plans- Empire Service-Westbound, 2035

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page B-131

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting 

10.3 APPENDIX C: Complete Competitive Mode Output Exhibits and 

Station to Station Matrices

Page B-132 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Model Outputs and Adjustment Methodology

The following Exhibits reflect a direct output from the 1080X1080 matrix from which the zones 

attributed to each of the six major markets (New York City, Albany, Utica, Syracuse, Rochester and 

Buffalo) were manually agglomerated to obtain the travel data (trips by mode) between each of the 

major market pairs for existing year 2009, base year 2012, no-build conditions and for the three service 

plans associated with the maximum operating speed of 79mph, 90mph and 110mph.

Since the model disaggregates the trips by their true destination and true origin, any trip that does not 

both begin and end within the geographical boundaries of the major markets will not be captured by the 

model output. Hence this output only shows a fraction of the trips that are taking place between each of 

the major market pairs and does not reflect the true travel market between the major market pairs.

Exhibits which are a direct output of the 1080X1080 matrix are a subset of the total inter-MPO traffic. 

This can be attributed to the fact that these charts fail to capture those MPO to MPO trips which actually 

have an origin, destination or both beyond the exact boundaries of the MPOs being studied. It is 

important to assign these trips (especially for air, bus and rail mode) to these MPOs to get a true 

understanding of the competitive travel market between them. Hence, in the Exhibits following those 

which reflect the direct output of the 1080X1080matrix the MPO to MPO travel modes are modified to 

reflect the actual on-ground conditions of travel; e.g.: A rail trip originating within the boundaries of 

New York City and ending at Buffalo, followed by a car trip to the ultimate destination at a point outside 

the Buffalo MPO would not be accounted for in the charts shown previously. The adjustments and 

modifications to those charts make sure that such trips are accounted for as they are in reality a part of 

the competitive travel market.

To make these adjustments the following steps were undertaken:

• A 17X17 (to account for the 17 stations along the corridor) matrix was created for the rail trips. 

Stations within each of the major markets were agglomerated together (e.g. the Buffalo market 

comprised of the Buffalo Depew, Buffalo Exchange and the Niagara Falls Station), to calculate 

the total major market to major market rail trips.

• For the air mode, the first primary adjustment that was done was to assign the trips in and out 

of Newark Liberty International Airport (EWR) to the New York City market (n the output of the 

1080X1080 they did not show up within the New York City market as EWR lies outside the 

geographical boundaries). Subsequently the following steps were taken: (i) an air trips matrix for 

2009 was set up using the data that was collected from various sources at the beginning of the 

study; (ii) the number of trips between each MPO pair was converted into a fraction which was 

calculated by dividing the number of trips for that pair by the sum total number of all air trips 

for that scenario, between each of the MPO pairs. (iii) finally for each scenario the ratios 

obtained were multiplied by the total sum of all the air trips as calculated from the output of the 

1080X1080 matrix for the various scenarios (e.g. 2012, 2018NB, 2018 79mph etc). This is 

consistent with the logic that the all air trips must pass through the MPO areas and sum total of 

all the air trips should match the sum total of all air trips between MPOs.

• The adjustments made at this level show a decrease in the total bus ridership. The total number 

of bus trips output from the 1080X1080 matrix should match the total bus trips occurring 

between the major MPO pairs as the only bus terminals that have been considered for the study 

are within the cities associated with each of the major markets. To adjust the bus trips and get a 

more realistic number reflecting the bus trips between the MPOs whether the true origin and or 

the true destination lies within the geographical boundaries of the MPOs the same level of 

adjustment was done for the bus trips and the steps detailed above for the air trips were 

repeated. 

At this juncture it was noticed that the total bus travel numbers were closely matched but some major 

market to major market numbers (those separated by shorter distance- like Buffalo to Rochester and 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page B-133

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting 

GBNRTC and Syracuse) were outside the expected trend lines of decreased bus ridership with increased 

speed of rail operations.

A similar exercise of adjustment could not be undertaken for the car trips as they could not be assigned 

to any particular node and hence there is no way to ascertain the path that a car trip would take 

between any two points between the major markets.

Page B-134 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Model Outputs from 1080X1080 Matrix

2009 AIR NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 40,297 349 203,731 227,105 410,143 881,624

CDTC 40,730 0 0 0 0 0 40,730

HOCTS 349 0 0 0 0 0 349

SMTC 203,731 0 0 0 0 0 203,731

GTC 227,105 0 0 0 0 0 227,105

GBNRTC 410,143 0 0 0 0 0 410,143

TOTAL 882,058 40,297 349 203,731 227,105 410,143 1,763,681

2009 BUS NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 365,448 130,250 248,156 205,078 391,442 1,340,374

CDTC 367,239 102 34,103 40,530 37,456 55,910 535,340

HOCTS 130,250 33,920 0 34,415 16,374 27,135 242,094

SMTC 248,156 40,530 34,415 0 78,719 151,406 553,227

GTC 205,078 37,453 16,374 78,719 0 138,297 475,922

GBNRTC 391,442 55,528 27,135 151,406 138,297 0 763,809

TOTAL 1,342,165 532,982 242,277 553,226 475,925 764,191 3,910,765

2009 CAR NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 2,019,534 134,243 3,584 25,380 45,129 2,227,869

CDTC 2,034,748 0 1,176,909 588,846 325,229 261,330 4,387,062

HOCTS 134,243 1,113,393 0 2,337,782 361,967 209,413 4,156,797

SMTC 3,584 562,538 2,337,782 0 1,549,870 929,718 5,383,491

GTC 25,380 315,125 361,967 1,549,870 0 4,559,912 6,812,253

GBNRTC 45,129 261,534 209,413 929,718 4,559,912 0 6,005,705

TOTAL 2,243,084 4,272,123 4,220,313 5,409,799 6,822,357 6,005,501 28,973,177

2009 RAIL NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 274,064 16,905 25,248 20,378 25,084 361,678

CDTC 275,328 2,038 6,830 8,203 10,974 303,372

HOCTS 16,905 2,030 781 1,387 2,388 23,491

SMTC 25,248 6,804 781 1,744 6,165 40,742

GTC 20,378 8,173 1,387 1,744 1,800 33,481

GBNRTC 25,084 10,932 2,388 6,165 1,800 46,369

TOTAL 362,942 302,003 23,498 40,768 33,511 46,411 809,133

2009 ALL 

MODES

 NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 2,699,342 281,747 480,719 477,941 871,797 4,811,544

CDTC 2,718,045 102 1,213,050 636,206 370,887 328,213 5,266,504

HOCTS 281,747 1,149,343 0 2,372,977 379,728 238,936 4,422,731

SMTC 480,719 609,872 2,372,977 0 1,630,333 1,087,290 6,181,191

GTC 477,941 360,751 379,728 1,630,333 0 4,700,009 7,548,761

GBNRTC 871,797 327,993 238,936 1,087,290 4,700,009 0 7,226,025

TOTAL 4,830,248 5,147,404 4,486,438 6,207,524 7,558,898 7,226,245 35,456,757

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page B-135

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting 

2012 AIR NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 56,184 421 207,389 227,684 412,391 904,069

CDTC 56,615 0 0 0 0 0 56,615

HOCTS 421 0 0 0 0 0 421

SMTC 207,389 0 0 0 0 0 207,389

GTC 227,684 0 0 0 0 0 227,684

GBNRTC 412,391 0 0 0 0 0 412,391

TOTAL 904,500 56,184 421 207,389 227,684 412,391 1,808,569

2012 BUS NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 672,978 155,667 247,761 210,267 409,083 1,695,755

CDTC 677,718 103 34,591 42,038 37,737 59,946 852,133

HOCTS 155,667 34,382 0 35,113 16,018 30,131 271,311

SMTC 247,761 41,980 35,113 0 77,333 168,528 570,715

GTC 210,267 37,914 16,018 77,333 0 238,421 579,953

GBNRTC 409,083 59,424 30,131 168,528 238,421 0 905,586

TOTAL 1,700,496 846,781 271,520 570,772 579,775 906,108 4,875,453

2012 CAR NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 1,727,583 109,576 3,652 24,616 33,436 1,898,863

CDTC 1,740,795 0 1,195,719 597,250 331,487 261,452 4,126,704

HOCTS 109,576 1,128,677 0 2,340,261 364,539 207,428 4,150,480

SMTC 3,652 569,530 2,340,261 0 1,557,332 915,579 5,386,352

GTC 24,616 320,363 364,539 1,557,332 0 4,491,061 6,757,912

GBNRTC 33,436 261,246 207,428 915,579 4,491,061 0 5,908,750

TOTAL 1,912,075 4,007,399 4,217,523 5,414,073 6,769,035 5,908,956 28,229,061

2012 RAIL NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 275,462 17,518 25,920 20,787 25,399 365,085

CDTC 276,819 1,990 6,499 7,754 10,557 303,619

HOCTS 17,518 1,982 776 1,358 2,471 24,105

SMTC 25,920 6,472 776 1,727 6,345 41,240

GTC 20,787 7,724 1,358 1,727 2,106 33,702

GBNRTC 25,399 10,511 2,471 6,345 2,106 46,831

TOTAL 366,442 302,151 24,113 41,266 33,733 46,878 814,582

2012 ALL 

MODES NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 2,732,206 283,182 484,722 483,353 880,309 4,863,772

CDTC 2,751,947 103 1,232,300 645,787 376,978 331,956 5,339,071

HOCTS 283,182 1,165,041 0 2,376,149 381,916 240,030 4,446,318

SMTC 484,722 617,982 2,376,149 0 1,636,392 1,090,451 6,205,696

GTC 483,353 366,002 381,916 1,636,392 0 4,731,588 7,599,250

GBNRTC 880,309 331,181 240,030 1,090,451 4,731,588 0 7,273,558

TOTAL 4,883,513 5,212,514 4,513,577 6,233,501 7,610,227 7,274,333 35,727,666

Page B-136 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting Tier 1 Draft EIS 

2018 NB AIR NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 44,872 393 211,504 235,551 422,000 914,321

CDTC 45,413 0 0 0 0 0 45,413

HOCTS 393 0 0 0 0 0 393

SMTC 211,504 0 0 0 0 0 211,504

GTC 235,551 0 0 0 0 0 235,551

GBNRTC 422,000 0 0 0 0 0 422,000

TOTAL 914,862 44,872 393 211,504 235,551 422,000 1,829,183

2018 NB 

BUS NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 612,028 152,437 244,119 214,455 416,972 1,640,011

CDTC 617,389 103 33,933 40,697 37,364 56,739 786,225

HOCTS 152,437 33,699 0 34,659 16,124 27,512 264,430

SMTC 244,119 40,630 34,659 0 77,215 152,811 549,433

GTC 214,455 37,392 16,124 77,215 0 176,099 521,285

GBNRTC 416,972 56,259 27,512 152,811 176,099 0 829,652

TOTAL 1,645,371 780,112 264,664 549,500 521,257 830,132 4,591,036

2018 NB 

CAR NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 1,888,668 115,458 10,646 25,339 29,175 2,069,286 

CDTC 1,903,333 0 1,236,637 621,579 347,531 272,413 4,381,493 

HOCTS 115,458 1,162,279 0 2,337,745 368,418 210,106 4,194,006 

SMTC 10,646 590,692 2,337,745 0 1,571,987 930,532 5,441,602 

GTC 25,339 334,676 368,418 1,571,987 0 4,610,448 6,910,868 

GBNRTC 29,175 270,909 210,106 930,532 4,610,448 0 6,051,169 

TOTAL 2,083,951 4,247,225 4,268,363 5,472,489 6,923,723 6,052,673 29,048,424 

2018 NB 

RAIL NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 271,638 17,388 26,469 21,289 25,864 362,648

CDTC 273,152 1,994 6,625 8,109 10,627 300,507

HOCTS 17,388 1,985 784 1,413 2,406 23,977

SMTC 26,469 6,595 784 1,809 6,188 41,845

GTC 21,289 8,072 1,413 1,809 1,891 34,474

GBNRTC 25,864 10,576 2,406 6,188 1,891 46,925

TOTAL 364,163 298,866 23,986 41,876 34,511 46,975 810,377

2018 NB ALL 

MODES

NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 2,817,206 285,677 492,738 496,634 894,011 4,986,266 

CDTC 2,839,287 103 1,272,563 668,902 393,004 339,778 5,513,638 

HOCTS 285,677 1,197,963 0 2,373,188 385,955 240,024 4,482,806 

SMTC 492,738 637,917 2,373,188 0 1,651,011 1,089,531 6,244,385 

GTC 496,634 380,141 385,955 1,651,011 0 4,788,438 7,702,179 

GBNRTC 894,011 337,744 240,024 1,089,531 4,788,438 0 7,349,747 

TOTAL 5,008,347 5,371,075 4,557,406 6,275,369 7,715,042 7,351,781 36,279,020 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page B-137

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting 

2018 79 

AIR NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 33,268 330 178,721 202,058 357,357 771,734

CDTC 33,667 0 0 0 0 0 33,667

HOCTS 330 0 0 0 0 0 330

SMTC 178,721 0 0 0 0 0 178,721

GTC 202,058 0 0 0 0 0 202,058

GBNRTC 357,357 0 0 0 0 0 357,357

TOTAL 772,133 33,268 330 178,721 202,058 357,357 1,543,867

2018 79 

BUS NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 594,713 144,265 228,962 200,590 390,948 1,559,477

CDTC 599,937 0 33,372 37,839 33,644 49,765 754,558

HOCTS 144,265 33,138 0 34,569 15,832 26,733 254,537

SMTC 228,962 37,783 34,569 0 76,892 150,281 528,486

GTC 200,590 33,688 15,832 76,892 0 175,786 502,788

GBNRTC 390,948 49,300 26,733 150,281 175,786 0 793,046

TOTAL 1,564,70

1 748,621 254,771 528,543 502,744 793,512 4,392,892

2018 79 

CAR NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 1,879,028 113,011 10,611 24,893 28,336 2,055,879

CDTC 1,893,660 0 1,235,152 615,620 342,630 256,882 4,343,944

HOCTS 113,011 1,160,808 0 2,337,488 367,676 206,787 4,185,769

SMTC 10,611 584,800 2,337,488 0 1,571,642 926,404 5,430,944 

GTC 24,893 329,858 367,676 1,571,642 0 4,609,392 6,903,460

GBNRTC 28,336 255,692 206,787 926,404 4,609,392 0 6,026,610

TOTAL 2,070,510 4,210,187 4,260,114 5,461,764 6,916,232 6,027,800 28,946,606

2018 79 

RAIL NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 310,197 28,071 74,445 69,093 117,370 599,176

CDTC 312,024 4,038 15,456 16,734 33,975 382,226

HOCTS 28,071 4,017 1,130 2,447 6,504 42,169

SMTC 74,445 15,347 1,130 2,478 12,846 106,247

GTC 69,093 16,599 2,447 2,478 3,270 93,887

GBNRTC 117,370 33,593 6,504 12,846 3,270 173,585

TOTAL 601,002 379,754 42,191 106,355 94,022 173,966 1,397,290

2018 79 

MPH ALL 

MODES

NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 2,817,206 285,677 492,738 496,634 894,011 4,986,266 

CDTC 2,839,287 0 1,272,563 668,915 393,008 340,622 5,514,395 

HOCTS 285,677 1,197,963 0 2,373,188 385,955 240,024 4,482,806

SMTC 492,738 637,930 2,373,188 0 1,651,012 1,089,531 6,244,398 

GTC 496,634 380,145 385,955 1,651,012 0 4,788,448 7,702,193 

GBNRTC 894,011 338,585 240,024 1,089,531 4,788,448 0 7,350,598

TOTAL 5,008,347 5,371,830 4,557,406 6,275,383 7,715,056 7,352,634 36,280,655 

2018 90 

AIR NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

Page B-138 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting Tier 1 Draft EIS 

NYMTC 0 33,219 316 173,552 194,262 327,271 728,619

CDTC 33,620 0 0 0 0 0 33,620 

HOCTS 316 0 0 0 0 0 316 

SMTC 173,552 0 0 0 0 0 173,552

GTC 194,262 0 0 0 0 0 194,262 

GBNRTC 327,271 0 0 0 0 0 327,271 

TOTAL 729,020 33,219 316 173,552 194,262 327,271 1,457,639 

2018 90 

BUS NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 594,628 143,575 227,440 198,100 381,182 1,544,925 

CDTC 599,858 0 33,205 36,930 32,256 46,660 748,909 

HOCTS 143,575 32,972 0 34,532 15,691 26,246 253,016 

SMTC 227,440 36,876 34,532 0 76,716 148,897 524,462

GTC 198,100 32,306 15,691 76,716 0 175,668 498,481 

GBNRTC 381,182 46,206 26,246 148,897 175,668 0 778,198 

TOTAL 1,550,155 742,988 253,250 524,515 498,431 778,652 4,347,991 

2018 90 

CAR NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 1,879,000 112,753 10,608 24,780 27,882 2,055,024 

CDTC 1,893,632 0 1,234,665 613,151 339,928 248,028 4,329,404 

HOCTS 112,753 1,160,325 0 2,337,381 367,255 204,681 4,182,396

SMTC 10,608 582,362 2,337,381 0 1,571,446 923,895 5,425,693 

GTC 24,780 327,204 367,255 1,571,446 0 4,608,951 6,899,636 

GBNRTC 27,882 247,090 204,681 923,895 4,608,951 0 6,012,500

TOTAL 2,069,656 4,195,981 4,256,736 5,456,481 6,912,360 6,013,438 28,904,653 

2018 90 

RAIL NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 310,359 29,033 81,138 79,492 157,676 657,698 

CDTC 312,178 4,693 18,837 20,825 46,175 402,707 

HOCTS 29,033 4,667 1,274 3,009 9,097 47,079 

SMTC 81,138 18,694 1,274 2,850 16,738 120,695 

GTC 79,492 20,636 3,009 2,850 3,834 109,820 

GBNRTC 157,676 45,529 9,097 16,738 3,834 232,874 

TOTAL 659,516 399,885 47,105 120,837 110,009 233,519 1,570,871 

2018 90 

MPH ALL 

MODES

NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 2,817,206 285,677 492,738 496,634 894,011 4,986,266 

CDTC 2,839,287 0 1,272,563 668,918 393,009 340,862 5,514,640 

HOCTS 285,677 1,197,963 0 2,373,188 385,955 240,024 4,482,806 

SMTC 492,738 637,933 2,373,188 0 1,651,012 1,089,531 6,244,401 

GTC 496,634 380,146 385,955 1,651,012 0 4,788,452 7,702,199 

GBNRTC 894,011 338,825 240,024 1,089,531 4,788,452 0 7,350,842 

TOTAL 5,008,347 5,372,073 4,557,406 6,275,386 7,715,062 7,352,880 36,281,153 

2018 110 

AIR NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page B-139

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting 

NYMTC 0 33,191 308 169,750 187,964 305,920 697,132

CDTC 33,593 0 0 0 0 0 33,593 

HOCTS 308 0 0 0 0 0 308 

SMTC 169,750 0 0 0 0 0 169,750

GTC 187,964 0 0 0 0 0 187,964 

GBNRTC 305,920 0 0 0 0 0 305,920 

TOTAL 697,534 33,191 308 169,750 187,964 305,920 1,394,667 

2018 110 

BUS NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 594,566 142,812 225,777 195,525 373,847 1,532,528 

CDTC 599,800 0 33,064 36,334 31,233 44,175 744,606 

HOCTS 142,812 32,831 0 34,519 15,597 25,827 251,586 

SMTC 225,777 36,282 34,519 0 76,561 147,527 520,665

GTC 195,525 31,287 15,597 76,561 0 175,571 494,541 

GBNRTC 373,847 43,734 25,827 147,527 175,571 0 766,506 

TOTAL 1,537,762 738,700 251,820 520,717 494,487 766,947 4,310,433 

2018 110 

CAR NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 1,878,970 112,424 10,601 24,623 27,533 2,054,151 

CDTC 1,893,602 0 1,234,236 611,363 337,590 240,428 4,317,219 

HOCTS 112,424 1,159,899 0 2,337,337 366,942 202,870 4,179,472 

SMTC 10,601 580,599 2,337,337 0 1,571,268 921,249 5,421,052

GTC 24,623 324,912 366,942 1,571,268 0 4,608,536 6,896,281 

GBNRTC 27,533 239,745 202,870 921,249 4,608,536 0 5,999,933 

TOTAL 2,068,783 4,184,125 4,253,808 5,451,817 6,908,959 6,000,616 28,868,108 

2018 110 

RAIL NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 310,479 30,133 86,611 88,521 186,710 702,454 

CDTC 312,292 5,263 21,223 24,187 56,426 419,390 

HOCTS 30,133 5,233 1,332 3,415 11,327 51,440 

SMTC 86,611 21,054 1,332 3,183 20,755 132,935 

GTC 88,521 23,948 3,415 3,183 4,351 123,418 

GBNRTC 186,710 55,511 11,327 20,755 4,351 278,654 

TOTAL 704,268 416,225 51,470 133,104 123,657 279,569 1,708,293 

2018 110 

MPH ALL 

MODES

NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 2,817,206 285,677 492,738 496,634 894,011 4,986,266 

CDTC 2,839,287 0 1,272,563 668,920 393,010 341,029 5,514,809 

HOCTS 285,677 1,197,963 0 2,373,188 385,955 240,024 4,482,806 

SMTC 492,738 637,935 2,373,188 0 1,651,012 1,089,531 6,244,403 

GTC 496,634 380,147 385,955 1,651,012 0 4,788,458 7,702,205 

GBNRTC 894,011 338,990 240,024 1,089,531 4,788,458 0 7,351,013 

TOTAL 5,008,347 5,372,241 4,557,406 6,275,388 7,715,068 7,353,051 36,281,501 

2035 NB AIR NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

Page B-140 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting Tier 1 Draft EIS 

NYMTC 0 104,963 650 233,725 259,754 444,584 1,043,676

CDTC 105,794 0 0 0 0 0 105,794 

HOCTS 650 0 0 0 0 0 650 

SMTC 233,725 0 0 0 0 0 233,725

GTC 259,754 0 0 0 0 0 259,754 

GBNRTC 444,584 0 0 0 0 0 444,584 

TOTAL 1,044,508 104,963 650 233,725 259,754 444,584 2,088,184 

2035 NB BUS NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 971,978 180,616 246,552 239,154 442,690 2,080,990 

CDTC 979,712 0 39,837 49,510 47,817 77,662 1,194,537 

HOCTS 180,616 39,401 0 36,926 19,259 42,162 318,364 

SMTC 246,552 49,039 36,926 0 87,808 244,106 664,431 

GTC 239,154 48,183 19,259 87,808 0 565,666 960,069 

GBNRTC 442,690 75,966 42,162 244,106 565,666 0 1,370,590

TOTAL 2,088,724 1,184,566 318,800 664,902 959,703 1,372,286 6,588,981 

2035 NB CAR NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 1,750,031 93,703 7,401 15,186 18,474 1,884,795 

CDTC 1,768,526 0 1,371,014 691,433 394,314 280,604 4,505,891

HOCTS 93,703 1,274,266 0 2,345,506 381,630 196,889 4,291,993 

SMTC 7,401 651,424 2,345,506 0 1,611,572 837,317 5,453,220 

GTC 15,186 375,180 381,630 1,611,572 0 4,410,903 6,794,470

GBNRTC 18,474 276,603 196,889 837,317 4,410,903 0 5,740,186 

TOTAL 1,903,289 4,327,505 4,388,742 5,493,228 6,813,605 5,744,187 28,670,555

2035 NB RAIL NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 278,573 19,312 27,579 23,069 26,319 374,851

CDTC 280,660 1,855 5,663 7,213 9,193 304,583 

HOCTS 19,312 1,842 769 1,400 2,737 26,059 

SMTC 27,579 5,621 769 4,469 7,882 46,319 

GTC 23,069 7,165 1,400 4,469 3,750 39,853 

GBNRTC 26,319 9,105 2,737 7,882 3,750 49,792 

TOTAL 376,939 302,306 26,072 46,361 39,900 49,880 841,457 

2035 NB ALL 

MODES

NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 3,105,544 294,281 515,256 537,163 932,068 5,384,313 

CDTC 3,134,691 0 1,412,706 746,606 449,343 367,459 6,110,805 

HOCTS 294,281 1,315,509 0 2,383,200 402,290 241,787 4,637,066

SMTC 515,256 706,085 2,383,200 0 1,703,848 1,089,305 6,397,694 

GTC 537,163 430,528 402,290 1,703,848 0 4,980,318 8,054,147 

GBNRTC 932,068 361,674 241,787 1,089,305 4,980,318 0 7,605,152 

TOTAL 5,413,460 5,919,340 4,734,263 6,438,215 8,072,963 7,610,937 38,189,178 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page B-141

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting 

2035 79 AIR NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 86,252 527 200,168 223,602 375,905 886,454 

CDTC 86,870 0 0 0 0 0 86,870 

HOCTS 527 0 0 0 0 0 527

SMTC 200,168 0 0 0 0 0 200,168 

GTC 223,602 0 0 0 0 0 223,602 

GBNRTC 375,905 0 0 0 0 0 375,905

TOTAL 887,073 86,252 527 200,168 223,602 375,905 1,773,526 

2035 79 BUS NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 938,525 170,927 234,925 225,747 415,335 1,985,459 

CDTC 946,108 0 39,345 46,842 43,788 68,459 1,144,542

HOCTS 170,927 38,910 0 36,844 18,922 40,766 306,369 

SMTC 234,925 46,384 36,844 0 87,475 240,994 646,622 

GTC 225,747 44,188 18,922 87,475 0 565,053 941,385 

GBNRTC 415,335 66,874 40,766 240,994 565,053 0 1,329,022 

TOTAL 1,993,042 1,134,881 306,804 647,080 940,985 1,330,606 6,353,400 

2035 79 CAR NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 1,744,627 92,416 7,368 14,917 18,141 1,877,470 

CDTC 1,763,083 0 1,369,547 685,841 389,744 267,096 4,475,311 

HOCTS 92,416 1,272,817 0 2,345,251 380,897 193,588 4,284,969 

SMTC 7,368 645,923 2,345,251 0 1,611,213 831,593 5,441,348

GTC 14,917 370,712 380,897 1,611,213 0 4,409,173 6,786,913 

GBNRTC 18,141 263,499 193,588 831,593 4,409,173 0 5,715,995 

TOTAL 1,895,926 4,297,579 4,381,699 5,481,266 6,805,944 5,719,592 28,582,004 

2035 79 RAIL NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 336,141 30,410 72,795 72,897 122,687 634,930 

CDTC 338,630 3,815 13,930 15,814 32,513 404,701 

HOCTS 30,410 3,783 1,105 2,471 7,433 45,201

SMTC 72,795 13,785 1,105 5,160 16,718 109,564 

GTC 72,897 15,630 2,471 5,160 6,100 102,258 

GBNRTC 122,687 31,907 7,433 16,718 6,100 184,844 

TOTAL 637,419 401,244 45,233 109,709 102,442 185,450 1,481,498 

2035 79 MPH 

ALL MODES

NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 3,105,544 294,281 515,256 537,163 932,068 5,384,313 

CDTC 3,134,691 0 1,412,706 746,614 449,346 368,067 6,111,424 

HOCTS 294,281 1,315,509 0 2,383,200 402,290 241,787 4,637,066 

SMTC 515,256 706,092 2,383,200 0 1,703,848 1,089,305 6,397,702 

GTC 537,163 430,530 402,290 1,703,848 0 4,980,326 8,054,157

GBNRTC 932,068 362,280 241,787 1,089,305 4,980,326 0 7,605,767 

TOTAL 5,413,460 5,919,956 4,734,263 6,438,223 8,072,973 7,611,554 38,190,428

Page B-142 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting Tier 1 Draft EIS 

2035 90 AIR NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 86,121 500 194,448 214,500 346,127 841,696 

CDTC 86,741 0 0 0 0 0 86,741 

HOCTS 500 0 0 0 0 0 500

SMTC 194,448 0 0 0 0 0 194,448 

GTC 214,500 0 0 0 0 0 214,500 

GBNRTC 346,127 0 0 0 0 0 346,127

TOTAL 842,316 86,121 500 194,448 214,500 346,127 1,684,012 

2035 90 BUS NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 938,346 169,705 232,877 222,352 405,150 1,968,430 

CDTC 945,934 107 39,189 45,937 42,259 64,171 1,137,596

HOCTS 169,705 38,754 0 36,809 18,756 39,902 303,925 

SMTC 232,877 45,484 36,809 0 87,302 239,219 641,690 

GTC 222,352 42,673 18,756 87,302 0 564,804 935,887 

GBNRTC 405,150 62,673 39,902 239,219 564,804 0 1,311,748 

TOTAL 1,976,018 1,128,037 304,360 642,144 935,473 1,313,245 6,299,277 

2035 90 CAR NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 1,744,595 92,222 7,358 14,817 17,912 1,876,903 

CDTC 1,763,051 0 1,369,043 683,383 387,042 258,823 4,461,342 

HOCTS 92,222 1,272,320 0 2,345,143 380,472 191,362 4,281,519 

SMTC 7,358 643,510 2,345,143 0 1,611,020 828,064 5,435,095

GTC 14,817 368,079 380,472 1,611,020 0 4,408,455 6,782,843 

GBNRTC 17,912 255,562 191,362 828,064 4,408,455 0 5,701,354 

TOTAL 1,895,359 4,284,066 4,378,242 5,474,968 6,801,806 5,704,615 28,539,057 

2035 90 RAIL NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 336,483 31,854 80,572 85,494 162,879 697,283 

CDTC 338,967 4,474 17,295 20,045 45,304 426,084 

HOCTS 31,854 4,435 1,248 3,061 10,523 51,123

SMTC 80,572 17,100 1,248 5,527 22,022 126,470 

GTC 85,494 19,779 3,061 5,527 7,072 120,932 

GBNRTC 162,879 44,273 10,523 22,022 7,072 246,769 

TOTAL 699,766 422,070 51,161 126,665 121,199 247,800 1,668,661 

2035 90 

MPH ALL 

MODES

NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 3,105,544 294,281 515,256 537,163 932,068 5,384,313 

CDTC 3,134,691 107 1,412,706 746,616 449,346 368,297 6,111,763 

HOCTS 294,281 1,315,509 0 2,383,200 402,290 241,787 4,637,066 

SMTC 515,256 706,095 2,383,200 0 1,703,848 1,089,305 6,397,704

GTC 537,163 430,531 402,290 1,703,848 0 4,980,331 8,054,162 

GBNRTC 932,068 362,508 241,787 1,089,305 4,980,331 0 7,605,999 

TOTAL 5,413,460 5,920,294 4,734,263 6,438,225 8,072,978 7,611,788 38,191,007 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page B-143

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting 

Page B-144 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program 

New York State Department of Transportation 

2035 110

AIR    NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 86,061 484 190,448 207,437 323,096 807,525

CDTC 86,682 0 0 0 0 0 86,682

HOCTS 484 0 0 0 0 0 484

SMTC 190,448 0 0 0 0 0 190,448

GTC 207,437 0 0 0 0 0 207,437

GBNRTC 323,096 0 0 0 0 0 323,096

TOTAL 808,146 86,061 484 190,448 207,437 323,096 1,615,671

2035 110

BUS NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 938,222 168,789 231,349 219,497 397,200 1,955,057

CDTC 945,814 106 39,059 45,325 41,111 60,697 1,132,111

HOCTS 168,789 38,624 0 36,793 18,639 39,120 301,964

SMTC 231,349 44,875 36,793 0 87,148 237,399 637,565

GTC 219,497 41,535 18,639 87,148 0 564,577 931,397

GBNRTC 397,200 59,290 39,120 237,399 564,577 0 1,297,586

TOTAL 1,962,649 1,122,652 302,399 638,015 930,973 1,298,993 6,255,681

2035 110

CAR    NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 1,744,582 92,019 7,349 14,715 17,697 1,876,362

CDTC 1,763,038 0 1,368,605 681,497 384,591 251,429 4,449,160

HOCTS 92,019 1,271,887 0 2,345,089 380,137 189,324 4,278,456

SMTC 7,349 641,661 2,345,089 0 1,610,844 824,253 5,429,197

GTC 14,715 365,696 380,137 1,610,844 0 4,407,737 6,779,129

GBNRTC 17,697 248,522 189,324 824,253 4,407,737 0 5,687,533

TOTAL 1,894,818 4,272,349 4,375,174 5,469,033 6,798,024 5,690,440 28,499,838

2035 110

RAIL    NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 336,680 32,988 86,110 95,514 194,075 745,368

CDTC 339,158 5,043 19,795 23,645 56,339 443,979

HOCTS 32,988 4,998 1,318 3,514 13,343 56,162

SMTC 86,110 19,560 1,318 5,856 27,652 140,496

GTC 95,514 23,300 3,514 5,856 8,021 136,204

GBNRTC 194,075 54,861 13,343 27,652 8,021 297,953

TOTAL 747,846 439,399 56,206 140,731 136,549 299,430 1,820,162

2035 110

MPH ALL

MODES

NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 3,105,544 294,281 515,256 537,163 932,068 5,384,313

CDTC 3,134,691 106 1,412,706 746,617 449,347 368,464 6,111,932

HOCTS 294,281 1,315,509 0 2,383,200 402,290 241,787 4,637,066

SMTC 515,256 706,096 2,383,200 0 1,703,848 1,089,305 6,397,705

GTC 537,163 430,531 402,290 1,703,848 0 4,980,335 8,054,167

GBNRTC 932,068 362,674 241,787 1,089,305 4,980,335 0 7,606,169

TOTAL 5,413,460 5,920,460 4,734,263 6,438,227 8,072,983 7,611,959 38,191,352
Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting Tier 1 Draft EIS 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page B-145 

New York State Department of Transportation 

Adjusted MPO to MPO trips by competitive modes.

2009 AIR    NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 55,087 477 278,508 310,462 560,683 1,205,218

CDTC 55,680 0 0 0 0 0 55,680

HOCTS 477 0 0 0 0 0 477

SMTC 278,508 0 0 0 0 0 278,508

GTC 310,462 0 0 4 0 0 310,467

GBNRTC 560,683 0 0 0 0 0 560,683

TOTAL 1,205,811 55,087 477 278,513 310,462 560,683 2,411,033

2009 BUS    NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC    405,460 176,212 266,885 217,272 427,700 1,493,528

CDTC 410,592     49,915 50,775 38,727 68,848 618,857

HOCTS 176,212 50,775     52,497 23,998 42,169 345,651

SMTC 302,812 50,775 52,497     92,084 187,611 685,779

GTC 236,090 51,636 24,097 104,133     159,211 575,167

GBNRTC 422,568 63,684 36,145 183,209 166,956     872,562

TOTAL 1,548,274 622,331 338,866 657,498 539,037 885,539 4,591,544

2009 CAR    NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 2,019,534 134,243 3,584 25,380 45,129 2,227,869

CDTC 2,034,748 0 1,176,909 588,846 325,229 261,330 4,387,062

HOCTS 134,243 1,113,393 0 2,337,782 361,967 209,413 4,156,797

SMTC 3,584 562,538 2,337,782 0 1,549,870 929,718 5,383,491

GTC 25,380 315,125 361,967 1,549,870 0 4,559,912 6,812,253

GBNRTC 45,129 261,534 209,413 929,718 4,559,912 0 6,005,705

TOTAL 2,243,084 4,272,123 4,220,313 5,409,799 6,822,357 6,005,501 28,973,177

2009 RAIL    NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 320,155 19,858 29,787 23,427 29,881 423,108

CDTC 320,155 0 2,082 7,013 8,224 11,133 348,607

HOCTS 19,858 2,082 0 819 1,421 2,480 26,659

SMTC 29,787 7,013 819 0 1,794 6,466 45,878

GTC 23,427 8,224 1,421 1,794 0 1,862 36,728

GBNRTC 29,881 11,133 2,480 6,466 1,862 0 51,821

TOTAL 423,108 348,607 26,659 45,878 36,728 51,821 932,801

2009 ALL

MODES    NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 2,800,235 330,791 578,764 576,540 1,063,392 5,349,723

CDTC 2,821,175 0 1,228,906 646,634 372,180 341,310 5,410,206

HOCTS 330,791 1,166,250 0 2,391,097 387,385 254,062 4,529,585

SMTC 614,691 620,326 2,391,097 0 1,643,748 1,123,795 6,393,657

GTC 595,359 374,985 387,485 1,655,800 0 4,720,985 7,734,614

GBNRTC 1,058,260 336,351 248,038 1,119,393 4,728,730 0 7,490,771

TOTAL 5,420,276 5,298,147 4,586,315 6,391,688 7,708,584 7,503,544 36,908,555
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting 

Page B-146 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program 

New York State Department of Transportation 

2012 AIR    NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 76,627 575 282,850 310,529 562,444 1,233,024

CDTC 77,215 0 0 0 0 0 77,215

HOCTS 575 0 0 0 0 0 575

SMTC 282,850 0 0 0 0 0 282,850

GTC 310,529 0 0 4 0 0 310,533

GBNRTC 562,444 0 0 0 0 0 562,444

TOTAL 1,233,612 76,627 575 282,854 310,529 562,444 2,466,640

2012 BUS    NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 783,641 181,265 288,502 244,843 476,352 1,974,603

CDTC 789,161 0 40,279 48,950 43,942 69,804 992,137

HOCTS 181,265 40,035 0 40,887 18,652 35,086 315,925

SMTC 288,502 48,883 40,887 0 90,050 196,240 664,562

GTC 244,843 44,149 18,652 90,050 0 277,626 675,320

GBNRTC 476,352 69,196 35,086 196,240 277,626 0 1,054,500

TOTAL 904,500 58,197 421 207,423 230,217 416,883 5,677,047

2012 CAR    NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 1,727,583 109,576 3,652 24,616 33,436 1,898,863

CDTC 1,740,795 0 1,195,719 597,250 331,487 261,452 4,126,704

HOCTS 109,576 1,128,677 0 2,340,261 364,539 207,428 4,150,480

SMTC 3,652 569,530 2,340,261 0 1,557,332 915,579 5,386,352

GTC 24,616 320,363 364,539 1,557,332 0 4,491,061 6,757,912

GBNRTC 33,436 261,246 207,428 915,579 4,491,061 0 5,908,750

TOTAL 904,500 58,197 421 207,423 230,217 416,883 28,229,061

2012 RAIL    NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 321,914 20,527 31,101 26,949 37,951 438,442

CDTC 321,914 0 2,038 6,690 7,785 10,729 349,156

HOCTS 20,527 2,038 0 813 1,393 2,566 27,337

SMTC 31,101 6,690 813 0 1,776 6,659 47,039

GTC 26,949 7,785 1,393 1,776 0 2,174 40,077

GBNRTC 37,951 10,729 2,566 6,659 2,174 0 60,080

TOTAL 904,500 58,197 421 207,423 230,217 416,883 962,131

2012 ALL

MODES     NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 2,909,765 311,942 606,105 606,937 1,110,183 5,544,932

CDTC 2,929,085 0 1,238,037 652,890 383,214 341,985 5,545,212

HOCTS 311,942 1,170,750 0 2,381,960 384,584 245,080 4,494,317

SMTC 606,105 625,103 2,381,960 0 1,649,157 1,118,478 6,380,804

GTC 606,937 372,298 384,584 1,649,162 0 4,770,861 7,783,841

GBNRTC 1,110,183 341,170 245,080 1,118,478 4,770,861 0 7,585,773

TOTAL 904,500 58,197 421 207,423 230,217 416,883 37,334,879
Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting Tier 1 Draft EIS 

2018 NB AIR NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 59,424 520 280,095 311,940 558,854 1,210,833

CDTC 60,140 0 0 0 0 0 60,141

HOCTS 520 0 0 0 0 0 520

SMTC 280,095 0 0 0 0 0 280,095

GTC 311,940 0 0 4 0 0 311,944

GBNRTC 558,854 0 0 0 0 0 558,854

TOTAL 1,211,550 59,424 520 280,099 311,940 558,854 2,422,387

2018 NB BUS NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 715,557 178,223 285,413 250,732 487,505 1,917,430

CDTC 721,824 121 39,673 47,581 43,684 66,336 919,220

HOCTS 178,223 39,399 0 40,522 18,852 32,165 309,161

SMTC 285,413 47,503 40,522 0 90,276 178,660 642,373

GTC 250,732 43,718 18,852 90,276 0 205,888 609,465

GBNRTC 487,505 65,776 32,165 178,660 205,888 0 969,994

TOTAL 914,862 46,950 393 211,540 238,231 426,701 5,367,642

2018 NB CAR NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 1,888,668 115,458 10,646 25,339 29,175 2,069,286

CDTC 1,903,333 0 1,236,637 621,579 347,531 272,413 4,381,493

HOCTS 115,458 1,162,279 0 2,337,745 368,418 210,106 4,194,006

SMTC 10,646 590,692 2,337,745 0 1,571,987 930,532 5,441,602

GTC 25,339 334,676 368,418 1,571,987 0 4,610,448 6,910,868

GBNRTC 29,175 270,909 210,106 930,532 4,610,448 0 6,051,169

TOTAL 914,862 46,950 393 211,540 238,231 426,701 29,048,424

2018 NB RAIL NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 317,570 20,368 31,352 36,767 60,145 466,201

CDTC 317,570 0 2,041 6,814 8,133 10,784 345,341

HOCTS 20,368 2,041 0 822 1,448 2,498 27,177

SMTC 31,352 6,814 822 0 1,860 6,490 47,337

GTC 36,767 8,133 1,447 1,860 0 1,955 50,162

GBNRTC 60,145 10,784 2,498 6,490 1,955 0 81,872

TOTAL 914,862 46,950 393 211,540 238,231 426,701 1,018,089

2018 NB ALL 

MODES

NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 2,981,219 314,569 607,506 624,777 1,135,679 5,663,750

CDTC 3,002,867 121 1,278,351 675,974 399,349 349,533 5,706,195

HOCTS 314,569 1,203,719 0 2,379,088 388,717 244,769 4,530,863

SMTC 607,506 645,008 2,379,088 0 1,664,123 1,115,681 6,411,407

GTC 624,777 386,527 388,717 1,664,128 0 4,818,290 7,882,438

GBNRTC 1,135,679 347,468 244,769 1,115,681 4,818,290 0 7,661,889

TOTAL 914,862 46,950 393 211,540 238,231 426,701 37,856,543

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page B-147

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting 

2018 79 AIR NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 44,349 440 238,251 269,362 476,389 1,028,791

CDTC 44,881 0 0 0 0 0 44,881

HOCTS 440 0 0 0 0 0 440

SMTC 238,251 0 0 0 0 0 238,251

GTC 269,362 0 0 4 0 0 269,366

GBNRTC 476,389 0 0 0 0 0 476,389

TOTAL 1,029,323 44,349 440 238,255 269,362 476,389 2,058,118

2018 79 BUS NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 698,535 169,450 268,933 235,608 459,198 1,831,724

CDTC 704,671 0 39,198 44,445 39,517 58,453 886,285

HOCTS 169,450 38,924 0 40,604 18,596 31,400 298,973

SMTC 268,933 44,379 40,604 0 90,315 176,516 620,747

GTC 235,608 39,569 18,596 90,315 0 206,473 590,562

GBNRTC 459,198 57,906 31,400 176,516 206,473 0 931,493

TOTAL 772,133 34,488 330 178,744 204,724 361,204 5,159,785

2018 79 CAR NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 1,879,028 113,011 10,611 24,893 28,336 2,055,879

CDTC 1,893,660 0 1,235,152 615,620 342,630 256,882 4,343,944

HOCTS 113,011 1,160,808 0 2,337,488 367,676 206,787 4,185,769

SMTC 10,611 584,800 2,337,488 0 1,571,642 926,404 5,430,944

GTC 24,893 329,858 367,676 1,571,642 0 4,609,392 6,903,460

GBNRTC 28,336 255,692 206,787 926,404 4,609,392 0 6,026,610

TOTAL 772,133 34,488 330 178,744 204,724 361,204 28,946,606

2018 79 RAIL NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 367,100 31,778 93,802 92,778 159,794 745,251

CDTC 367,100 0 4,144 16,020 16,865 34,558 438,686

HOCTS 31,778 4,144 0 1,181 2,514 6,812 46,428

SMTC 93,802 16,020 1,181 0 2,544 13,579 127,126

GTC 92,778 16,865 2,514 2,544 0 3,428 118,128

GBNRTC 159,794 34,558 6,812 13,579 3,428 0 218,171

TOTAL 772,133 34,488 330 178,744 204,724 361,204 1,693,791

2018 79 MPH 

ALL MODES

NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 2,989,012 314,678 611,597 622,641 1,123,716 5,661,645

CDTC 3,010,312 0 1,278,495 676,085 399,012 349,893 5,713,797

HOCTS 314,678 1,203,876 0 2,379,273 388,786 244,998 4,531,611

SMTC 611,597 645,199 2,379,273 0 1,664,501 1,116,499 6,417,069

GTC 622,641 386,292 388,786 1,664,505 0 4,819,293 7,881,516

GBNRTC 1,123,716 348,156 244,998 1,116,499 4,819,293 0 7,652,663

TOTAL 772,133 34,488 330 178,744 204,724 361,204 37,858,300

Page B-148 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting Tier 1 Draft EIS 

2018 90 AIR NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 44,781 426 233,955 261,873 441,176 982,210

CDTC 45,321 0 0 0 0 0 45,321

HOCTS 426 0 0 0 0 0 426

SMTC 233,955 0 0 0 0 0 233,955

GTC 261,873 0 0 4 0 0 261,877

GBNRTC 441,176 0 0 0 0 0 441,176

TOTAL 982,750 44,781 426 233,959 261,873 441,176 1,964,965

2018 90 BUS NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 699,209 168,827 267,441 232,941 448,222 1,816,640

CDTC 705,359 0 39,046 43,425 37,929 54,866 880,625

HOCTS 168,827 38,771 0 40,606 18,451 30,861 297,515

SMTC 267,441 43,362 40,606 0 90,209 175,084 616,702

GTC 232,941 37,988 18,451 90,209 0 206,563 586,152

GBNRTC 448,222 54,333 30,861 175,084 206,563 0 915,064

TOTAL 729,020 34,195 316 173,571 196,922 330,873 5,112,698

2018 90 CAR NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 1,879,000 112,753 10,608 24,780 27,882 2,055,024

CDTC 1,893,632 0 1,234,665 613,151 339,928 248,028 4,329,404

HOCTS 112,753 1,160,325 0 2,337,381 367,255 204,681 4,182,396

SMTC 10,608 582,362 2,337,381 0 1,571,446 923,895 5,425,693

GTC 24,780 327,204 367,255 1,571,446 0 4,608,951 6,899,636

GBNRTC 27,882 247,090 204,681 923,895 4,608,951 0 6,012,500

TOTAL 729,020 34,195 316 173,571 196,922 330,873 28,904,653

2018 90 RAIL NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 367,268 32,838 102,119 104,482 201,013 807,720

CDTC 367,268 0 4,817 19,560 21,013 47,003 459,660

HOCTS 32,838 4,817 0 1,331 3,097 9,534 51,618

SMTC 102,119 19,560 1,331 0 2,927 17,693 143,630

GTC 104,482 21,013 3,097 2,927 0 4,020 135,538

GBNRTC 201,013 47,003 9,534 17,693 4,020 0 279,263

TOTAL 729,020 34,195 316 173,571 196,922 330,873 1,877,430

2018 90 MPH 

ALL MODES

NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 2,990,257 314,844 614,124 624,077 1,118,293 5,661,595

CDTC 3,011,579 0 1,278,528 676,136 398,870 349,897 5,715,010

HOCTS 314,844 1,203,913 0 2,379,318 388,803 245,077 4,531,954

SMTC 614,124 645,284 2,379,318 0 1,664,581 1,116,673 6,419,980

GTC 624,077 386,205 388,803 1,664,585 0 4,819,534 7,883,204

GBNRTC 1,118,293 348,425 245,077 1,116,673 4,819,534 0 7,648,003

TOTAL 729,020 34,195 316 173,571 196,922 330,873 37,859,746

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page B-149

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting 

2018 110 AIR NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 45,162 419 230,976 255,760 416,261 948,578

CDTC 45,709 0 0 0 0 0 45,709

HOCTS 419 0 0 0 0 0 419

SMTC 230,976 0 0 0 0 0 230,976

GTC 255,760 0 0 4 0 0 255,765

GBNRTC 416,261 0 0 0 0 0 416,261

TOTAL 949,125 45,162 419 230,980 255,760 416,261 1,897,707

2018 110 BUS NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 699,782 168,085 265,731 230,126 440,004 1,803,727

CDTC 705,942 0 38,916 42,763 36,760 51,992 876,373

HOCTS 168,085 38,640 0 40,628 18,357 30,397 296,107

SMTC 265,731 42,702 40,628 0 90,109 173,633 612,804

GTC 230,126 36,824 18,357 90,109 0 206,640 582,056

GBNRTC 440,004 51,473 30,397 173,633 206,640 0 902,148

TOTAL 697,534 33,999 308 169,767 190,619 309,350 5,073,216

2018 110 CAR NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 1,878,970 112,424 10,601 24,623 27,533 2,054,151

CDTC 1,893,602 0 1,234,236 611,363 337,590 240,428 4,317,219

HOCTS 112,424 1,159,899 0 2,337,337 366,942 202,870 4,179,472

SMTC 10,601 580,599 2,337,337 0 1,571,268 921,249 5,421,052

GTC 24,623 324,912 366,942 1,571,268 0 4,608,536 6,896,281

GBNRTC 27,533 239,745 202,870 921,249 4,608,536 0 5,999,933

TOTAL 697,534 33,999 308 169,767 190,619 309,350 28,868,108

2018 110 

RAIL NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 367,391 34,028 108,669 114,396 230,674 855,157

CDTC 367,391 0 5,406 22,064 24,432 57,478 476,770

HOCTS 34,028 5,406 0 1,391 3,516 11,876 56,216

SMTC 108,669 22,064 1,391 0 3,269 21,928 157,321

GTC 114,396 24,432 3,515 3,269 0 4,556 150,168

GBNRTC 230,674 57,478 11,876 21,928 4,556 0 326,512

TOTAL 697,534 33,999 308 169,767 190,619 309,350 2,022,145

2018 110 

MPH ALL 

MODES

NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 2,991,305 314,954 615,977 624,905 1,114,472 5,661,613

CDTC 3,012,644 0 1,278,557 676,191 398,782 349,899 5,716,072

HOCTS 314,954 1,203,946 0 2,379,355 388,815 245,143 4,532,214

SMTC 615,977 645,365 2,379,355 0 1,664,646 1,116,810 6,422,153

GTC 624,905 386,167 388,815 1,664,650 0 4,819,733 7,884,270

GBNRTC 1,114,472 348,697 245,143 1,116,810 4,819,733 0 7,644,854

TOTAL 697,534 33,999 308 169,767 190,619 309,350 37,861,177

Page B-150 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting Tier 1 Draft EIS 

2035 NB AIR NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 135,794 841 302,379 336,055 575,177 1,350,247

CDTC 136,870 0 0 0 0 0 136,870

HOCTS 841 0 0 0 0 0 841

SMTC 302,379 0 0 0 0 0 302,379

GTC 336,055 0 0 4 0 0 336,059

GBNRTC 575,177 0 0 0 0 0 575,177

TOTAL 1,351,323 135,795 841 302,383 336,055 575,177 2,701,574

2035 NB BUS NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 1,150,454 213,781 291,824 283,068 523,978 2,463,105

CDTC 1,159,609 0 47,152 58,601 56,597 91,922 1,413,880

HOCTS 213,781 46,636 0 43,706 22,796 49,903 376,823

SMTC 291,824 58,044 43,706 0 103,931 288,930 786,435

GTC 283,068 57,030 22,796 103,931 0 669,534 1,136,359

GBNRTC 523,978 89,915 49,903 288,930 669,534 0 1,622,260

TOTAL 1,044,508 107,533 650 233,751 262,295 449,674 7,798,863

2035 NB CAR NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 1,750,031 93,703 7,401 15,186 18,474 1,884,795

CDTC 1,768,526 0 1,371,014 691,433 394,314 280,604 4,505,891

HOCTS 93,703 1,274,266 0 2,345,506 381,630 196,889 4,291,993

SMTC 7,401 651,424 2,345,506 0 1,611,572 837,317 5,453,220

GTC 15,186 375,180 381,630 1,611,572 0 4,410,903 6,794,470

GBNRTC 18,474 276,603 196,889 837,317 4,410,903 0 5,740,186

TOTAL 1,044,508 107,533 650 233,751 262,295 449,674 28,670,555

2035 NB RAIL NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 338,627 22,414 32,425 38,833 59,707 492,005

CDTC 338,627 0 1,901 5,835 7,233 9,347 362,944

HOCTS 22,414 1,901 0 807 1,438 2,857 29,416

SMTC 32,425 5,835 807 0 4,637 8,273 51,976

GTC 38,833 7,233 1,437 4,637 0 4,511 56,650

GBNRTC 59,707 9,347 2,857 8,273 4,511 0 84,694

TOTAL 1,044,508 107,533 650 233,751 262,295 449,674 1,077,685

2035 NB ALL 

MODES

NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 3,374,907 330,738 634,030 673,141 1,177,336 6,190,152

CDTC 3,403,631 0 1,420,067 755,869 458,144 381,874 6,419,586

HOCTS 330,738 1,322,803 0 2,390,018 405,864 249,649 4,699,073

SMTC 634,030 715,303 2,390,018 0 1,720,139 1,134,519 6,594,010

GTC 673,141 439,443 405,864 1,720,143 0 5,084,948 8,323,539

GBNRTC 1,177,336 375,866 249,649 1,134,519 5,084,948 0 8,022,318

TOTAL 1,044,508 107,533 650 233,751 262,295 449,674 40,248,677

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page B-151

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting 

2035 79 AIR NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 112,172 685 260,322 290,798 488,872 1,152,848

CDTC 112,977 0 0 0 0 0 112,977

HOCTS 685 0 0 0 0 0 685

SMTC 260,322 0 0 0 0 0 260,322

GTC 290,798 0 0 4 0 0 290,802

GBNRTC 488,872 0 0 0 0 0 488,872

TOTAL 1,153,653 112,172 685 260,326 290,798 488,872 2,306,506

2035 79 BUS NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 1,115,442 203,148 279,210 268,302 493,628 2,359,729

CDTC 1,124,454 0 46,762 55,673 52,043 81,363 1,360,295

HOCTS 203,148 46,244 0 43,789 22,489 48,450 364,121

SMTC 279,210 55,128 43,789 0 103,965 286,423 768,514

GTC 268,302 52,518 22,489 103,965 0 671,568 1,118,841

GBNRTC 493,628 79,480 48,450 286,423 671,568 0 1,579,550

TOTAL 887,073 88,206 527 200,187 226,132 380,379 7,551,050

2035 79 CAR NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 1,744,627 92,416 7,368 14,917 18,141 1,877,470

CDTC 1,763,083 0 1,369,547 685,841 389,744 267,096 4,475,311

HOCTS 92,416 1,272,817 0 2,345,251 380,897 193,588 4,284,969

SMTC 7,368 645,923 2,345,251 0 1,611,213 831,593 5,441,348

GTC 14,917 370,712 380,897 1,611,213 0 4,409,173 6,786,913

GBNRTC 18,141 263,499 193,588 831,593 4,409,173 0 5,715,995

TOTAL 887,073 88,206 527 200,187 226,132 380,379 28,582,004

2035 79 RAIL NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 408,510 34,232 91,692 96,535 164,461 795,430

CDTC 408,510 0 3,919 14,454 15,935 33,144 475,962

HOCTS 34,232 3,919 0 1,156 2,543 7,818 49,669

SMTC 91,692 14,454 1,156 0 5,347 17,643 130,292

GTC 96,535 15,935 2,543 5,347 0 6,957 127,317

GBNRTC 164,461 33,144 7,818 17,643 6,957 0 230,023

TOTAL 887,073 88,206 527 200,187 226,132 380,379 1,808,692

2035 79 MPH 

ALL MODES

NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 3,380,751 330,482 638,591 670,552 1,165,101 6,185,477

CDTC 3,409,024 0 1,420,227 755,968 457,721 381,603 6,424,544

HOCTS 330,482 1,322,980 0 2,390,196 405,929 249,856 4,699,444

SMTC 638,591 715,506 2,390,196 0 1,720,524 1,135,659 6,600,476

GTC 670,552 439,165 405,929 1,720,528 0 5,087,699 8,323,872

GBNRTC 1,165,101 376,124 249,856 1,135,659 5,087,699 0 8,014,439

TOTAL 887,073 88,206 527 200,187 226,132 380,379 40,248,252

Page B-152 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting Tier 1 Draft EIS 

2035 90 AIR NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 113,005 655 255,148 281,459 454,175 1,104,442

CDTC 113,818 0 0 0 0 0 113,818

HOCTS 655 0 0 0 0 0 655

SMTC 255,148 0 0 0 0 0 255,148

GTC 281,459 0 0 4 0 0 281,463

GBNRTC 454,175 0 0 0 0 0 454,175

TOTAL 1,105,255 113,005 655 255,152 281,459 454,175 2,209,701

2035 90 

BUS NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 1,116,350 201,898 277,054 264,532 482,007 2,341,842

CDTC 1,125,377 127 46,623 54,652 50,276 76,344 1,353,398

HOCTS 201,898 46,105 0 43,791 22,314 47,471 361,580

SMTC 277,054 54,112 43,791 0 103,863 284,599 763,419

GTC 264,532 50,768 22,314 103,863 0 671,947 1,113,424

GBNRTC 482,007 74,562 47,471 284,599 671,947 0 1,560,586

TOTAL 842,316 87,844 500 194,465 217,026 350,367 7,494,250

2035 90 

CAR NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 1,744,595 92,222 7,358 14,817 17,912 1,876,903

CDTC 1,763,051 0 1,369,043 683,383 387,042 258,823 4,461,342

HOCTS 92,222 1,272,320 0 2,345,143 380,472 191,362 4,281,519

SMTC 7,358 643,510 2,345,143 0 1,611,020 828,064 5,435,095

GTC 14,817 368,079 380,472 1,611,020 0 4,408,455 6,782,843

GBNRTC 17,912 255,562 191,362 828,064 4,408,455 0 5,701,354

TOTAL 842,316 87,844 500 194,465 217,026 350,367 28,539,057

2035 90 

RAIL NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 408,881 35,799 101,207 110,559 205,556 862,002

CDTC 408,881 0 4,598 17,979 20,220 46,212 497,890

HOCTS 35,799 4,598 0 1,306 3,156 11,076 55,934

SMTC 101,207 17,979 1,306 0 5,723 23,235 149,449

GTC 110,559 20,220 3,156 5,723 0 7,959 147,617

GBNRTC 205,556 46,212 11,076 23,235 7,959 0 294,037

TOTAL 842,316 87,844 500 194,465 217,026 350,367 2,006,928

2035 90 

MPH ALL 

MODES

NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 3,382,830 330,574 640,767 671,367 1,159,650 6,185,189

CDTC 3,411,127 127 1,420,264 756,014 457,538 381,379 6,426,448

HOCTS 330,574 1,323,023 0 2,390,240 405,943 249,908 4,699,688

SMTC 640,767 715,602 2,390,240 0 1,720,605 1,135,897 6,603,111

GTC 671,367 439,067 405,943 1,720,609 0 5,088,361 8,325,347

GBNRTC 1,159,650 376,336 249,908 1,135,897 5,088,361 0 8,010,153

TOTAL 842,316 87,844 500 194,465 217,026 350,367 40,249,936

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page B-153

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting 

2035 110 AIR NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 113,822 640 251,883 274,352 427,321 1,068,018

CDTC 114,644 0 0 0 0 0 114,644

HOCTS 640 0 0 0 0 0 640

SMTC 251,883 0 0 0 0 0 251,883

GTC 274,352 0 0 4 0 0 274,356

GBNRTC 427,321 0 0 0 0 0 427,321

TOTAL 1,068,839 113,822 640 251,887 274,352 427,321 2,136,861

2035 110 BUS NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 1,117,118 200,973 275,462 261,350 472,936 2,327,839

CDTC 1,126,157 126 46,506 53,967 48,950 72,270 1,347,976

HOCTS 200,973 45,988 0 43,808 22,193 46,579 359,542

SMTC 275,462 53,431 43,808 0 103,766 282,666 759,133

GTC 261,350 49,455 22,193 103,766 0 672,228 1,108,992

GBNRTC 472,936 70,595 46,579 282,666 672,228 0 1,545,004

TOTAL 808,146 87,617 484 190,463 209,980 327,164 7,448,486

2035 110 CAR NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 1,744,582 92,019 7,349 14,715 17,697 1,876,362

CDTC 1,763,038 0 1,368,605 681,497 384,591 251,429 4,449,160

HOCTS 92,019 1,271,887 0 2,345,089 380,137 189,324 4,278,456

SMTC 7,349 641,661 2,345,089 0 1,610,844 824,253 5,429,197

GTC 14,715 365,696 380,137 1,610,844 0 4,407,737 6,779,129

GBNRTC 17,697 248,522 189,324 824,253 4,407,737 0 5,687,533

TOTAL 808,146 87,617 484 190,463 209,980 327,164 28,499,838

2035 110 RAIL NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 409,082 37,021 107,785 121,555 237,431 912,874

CDTC 409,082 0 5,185 20,604 23,876 57,504 516,250

HOCTS 37,021 5,185 0 1,378 3,626 14,047 61,257

SMTC 107,785 20,604 1,378 0 6,059 29,154 164,980

GTC 121,555 23,876 3,625 6,059 0 8,928 164,043

GBNRTC 237,431 57,504 14,047 29,154 8,928 0 347,065

TOTAL 808,146 87,617 484 190,463 209,980 327,164 2,166,469

2035 110 

MPH ALL 

MODES

NYMTC CDTC HOCTS SMTC GTC GBNRTC TOTAL

NYMTC 0 3,384,604 330,653 642,478 671,972 1,155,385 6,185,092

CDTC 3,412,920 126 1,420,296 756,069 457,416 381,203 6,428,030

HOCTS 330,653 1,323,060 0 2,390,276 405,955 249,950 4,699,895

SMTC 642,478 715,697 2,390,276 0 1,720,669 1,136,073 6,605,193

GTC 671,972 439,027 405,955 1,720,673 0 5,088,893 8,326,520

GBNRTC 1,155,385 376,622 249,950 1,136,073 5,088,893 0 8,006,923

TOTAL 808,146 87,617 484 190,463 209,980 327,164 40,251,654

Page B-154 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Station to Station Rail Trips – 2009 and 2012

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page B-155

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting 

Station to Station Rail Trips – 2018 No Build and 2018 79MPH

Page B-156 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Station to Station Rail Trips – 2018 90MPH and 2018 110MPH

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page B-157

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting 

Station to Station Rail Trips – 2035 NO BUILD and 2035 79MPH

Page B-158 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix B – Ridership and Revenue Forcasting Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Station to Station Rail Trips – 2035 90MPH and 2035 110MPH

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page B-159

New York State Department of Transportation
This page intentionally left blank. 
C

Appendix C Alternatives Development and Screening Report 
This page intentionally left blank. 
Appendix C – Alternatives Development and Screening Report Tier 1 Draft EIS 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page i 

New York State Department of Transportation 

Table of Contents 

1. Initial Alternatives Development and Screening ............................................................................................. C-1

1.1. Overview ................................................................................................................................................. C-1

1.2. Base Alternative (No Action) ................................................................................................................... C-1

1.3. Alternatives Screening ............................................................................................................................ C-2

1.3.1. Alternative 79 ................................................................................................................................. C-5

1.3.2. Alternative 160 and Alternative 220 .............................................................................................. C-6

1.4. Feasible Alternatives Advanced for Further Study ................................................................................. C-8

1.4.1. Alternatives without Significant New Mainline Track ................................................................... C-9

1.4.2. Alternatives with Significant New Mainline Track ....................................................................... C-10

1.4.3. Very High Speed Alternatives with Complete Grade Separation ................................................ C-12

2. Engineering Assumptions and Discussion: Alternatives 90, 110 and 125 ..................................................... C-12

2.1. Alternative 90A ..................................................................................................................................... C-12

2.2. Alternatives 90B and 110 ...................................................................................................................... C-13

2.2.1. Alternative 110 – Brief Overview from a Track Engineering Perspective ................................... C-14

2.2.2. Examples of Where Desired Speeds Were Attained With Additional Work ............................... C-14

2.2.3. Examples of Where Desired Speeds Were Not Attained Due to Physical Constraints ............... C-15

2.3. Alternative 125 ...................................................................................................................................... C-15

3. High-Level Costs for Alternatives 90, 110 and 125 ........................................................................................ C-16

3.1. Engineering Cost Estimate Methodology and Assumptions for Alternatives 90 and 110 ................... C-16

3.2. Alternative 90A ..................................................................................................................................... C-17

3.3. Alternative 90B and 110 ....................................................................................................................... C-19

3.3.1. Engineering Cost Estimate Methodology and Assumptions for Alternative 125 ........................ C-19

3.3.2. Additional Details on Selected Estimate Items ............................................................................ C-19

4. Constructability and Phasing Implications ..................................................................................................... C-20

4.1. Constructability and Phasing Implications for Alternatives 90 and 110 .............................................. C-20

4.1.1. Example 1 – New Passenger Mainline Tracks in Alternative 90mph - MP 204 to MP 215 ......... C-20

4.1.2. Example 2 – Proposed Flyover in Alternative 110mph - MP 278 to MP 281 .............................. C-22

4.2. Constructability and Phasing Implications for Alternative 125 ............................................................ C-23
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix C – Alternatives Development and Screening Report 

Page ii High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program 

New York State Department of Transportation 

List of Exhibits

Exhibit C-1 — Base (No Action) Alternative Passenger Rail Improvement Projects ..................................................... C-2

Exhibit C-2 — Overview of all Alternatives under Initial Consideration ....................................................................... C-3

Exhibit C-3 — Empire Corridor West: 2008 Delays .................................................................................................... C-10

Exhibit C-4 —Unit Cost Assumptions for All Alternatives ........................................................................................... C-18
Appendix C – Alternatives Development and Screening Report Tier 1 Draft EIS 

1. Initial Alternatives Development and Screening 

1.1. Overview 

The High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program initially considered six passenger rail service 

alternatives, defined by their “maximum authorized speed” (MAS) 1 ratings along the Empire

Corridor West segment of the Corridor that runs between Albany/Schenectady and BuffaloDepew/Niagara Falls, in addition to a Base Alternative (No Action). Three of the six proposed MAS 

services were: 79 mph (the current passenger MAS west of Hoffmans MP169.9), 90 mph and 110 

m p h . Each of these speeds has specific regulatory requirements associated with track geometry 

and topography and, together, they were deemed to represent a reasonable range of alternatives. 

Subsequently, as a result of input from Public Scoping meetings held in the fall of 2010, “very high 

speed” (VHS) alternatives of 125 mph, 160 mph and 220 mph MAS were added to the alternatives 

development and screening process. 

1.2. Base Alternative (No Action) 

All alternatives include the improvements made under the Base Alternative (No Action). The Base 

Alternative consists of eight capital improvement projects that have been funded under TIGER 

grants and other mechanisms. The Base (Alternative is carried through the Tier 1 EIS as the Base 

Alternative (BA) to evaluate the cost and impacts of the program Build Alternatives in relation to the 

benefits gained by the public through this minimal upgrading of existing service on the existing 

right-of-way. 

The Base Alternative represents a continuation of existing Amtrak service with limited operational 

and service improvements currently planned and funded to address previously identified capacity 

constraints. Such improvements would consist of new rail vehicles, maintenance, rehabilitation and 

improvement to track capacity, signal work, highway-rail crossings, and passenger stations. The key 

improvement projects under the Base Alternative are summarized in Exhibit C-1. Train frequency 

would remain unchanged from the existing frequency. 

Despite increasing ridership, the Base Alternative makes no provision for any improvement of rail 

service beyond what is already being operated and programmed by Amtrak, Metro-North and/or 

NYSDOT. It would assume the continued operation of four daily round-trips of conventional speed 

Amtrak passenger trains between Penn Station, New York City and Niagara Falls on the Metro-North 

Rail Road and CSXT-owned alignment. 

 

#/MAS refers to the maximum allowable speed for specific types of rail equipment based on track geometry and topography. Most 

passenger services will spend only a portion of the time at the MAS – steep hills and sharper curves interspersed along the right-of-way will 

require deceleration and acceleration that result in lower average speeds over the entire length of the segment. 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix C – Alternatives Development and Screening Report 

Page C-2 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program 

New York State Department of Transportation 

Exhibit C-1 — Base (No Action) Alternative Passenger Rail Improvement Projects 

Project Name

(Milepost)

ARRA Grant 

Application

Project Description

Hudson Subdivision 

Signal Reliability 

(MP 75.8 to 140)

ES-3

Replace old signal poles (for electric power to signals and 

communication lines) with underground cable between 

Poughkeepsie and Rensselaer Station. 

Highway-Rail Grade 

Crossings Safety 

Improvements CSXT 

Hudson Line

(MP 75.8 to 140)

ES-1

Design and install grade crossing active warning device, 

roadway approach and/or pedestrian improvements to 

accommodate improved passenger rail operations between 

Poughkeepsie and Albany-Rensselaer.

Rensselaer Station 

Fourth Track Capacity 

Improvements

(MP 141 to 143)

ES-9

Add fourth track and extend platform to increase station 

capacity, operating speeds, train frequency, routing, and reduce 

delays.

Albany-Schenectady 

Double Track 

(MP 143.2 to 160.3)

ES-10

Design, construct and rehabilitate a second main track between 

the Rensselaer and Schenectady stations to increase capacity, 

reduce bottleneck, and improve operations in congested single 

track segment.

Schenectady Station 

Renovation /Platform 

Improvements

(MP 159.8)

EW-01 Complete station reconstruction, ADA-compliant platform and 

station access, viaduct repairs and parking improvements.

Syracuse Track 

Configuration and Signal 

Improvements 

(MP 287 to 291)

EW-6

Upgrade existing third track to reduce congestion, delays and 

interference between passenger and freight trains.

Rochester Subdivision 

Third Main Track

(MP 382 to 393)

EW-20 New third main track and signal system to improve speed, 

frequency, and reliability.

Niagara Falls Station –

New Intermodal 

Transportation Center 

(MP 28.2)

EW-13 New station with improved location in downtown Niagara Falls, 

function, operation, connectivity, border security, less delays.

ES=Empire Corridor South; EW= Empire Corridor West 

Source: NYSDOT ARRA Grant Applications. 

1.3. Alternatives Screening 

The purpose of the screening process was to dismissed from further evaluation, alternatives that fail 

to meet the program objectives as articulated in the program Purpose and Need. The screening is 

also intended to ensure that all alternatives fall within an economically, environmentally and 

technologically feasible range. Given these premises, the 79, 160 and 220 mph MAS alternatives 

were eliminated from further evaluation in the Tier 1 EIS. The following is a brief description of the 

alternatives and an assessment of their shortcomings in meeting the program performance 

objectives. A summary of this analysis is provided in Exhibit C-2. 
Exhibit C-2 — Overview of all Alternatives under Initial Consideration 

Empire 

Corridor

Alternatives

Maximum 

Authorized 

Speed

Average 

Speed 

(Including 

Stops)

Best 

Scheduled 

Travel 

Time NYC‐

NFL

Est. Capital

Costs

(Billions 

USD)

Annual 

O&M Cost 

(Millions 

USD)

Annual 

Ticket 

Revenue 

(Millions 

USD)

Annual Net 

Subsidy 

(Millions 

USD)

Est. Annual

Ridership

Alternative Description Notes Train Technology

BA 79 mph 53 mph 8:45 0.35 84.49 80.06 4.43 1,595,000* Includes previously approved projects which provide 

improvements to: Station, Capacity, Signal System and 

Service Reliability

Existing 110 mph speed maintained Hudson‐

Albany‐Schenectady

79A 79 mph 55 mph 8:21 1.50 84.49 110.85 (26.36) 2,077,000* Improvements to make service more reliable, including 

passing sidings, signals and station improvements.

Existing 110 mph speed maintained Hudson‐

Albany‐ Schenectady “79 mph Series:” Current limit on CSXT Empire 

Corridor West based on Class 4 track 

standards and lack of in‐cab signaling. Uses 

current vehicle technology with possibility of 

integrated trainset.

79B 79 mph 59 mph 7:51 2.00 137.65 119.19 18.46 2,200,000* Adds trains to increase frequency, including 4 express 

service trains. Infrastructure same as Alt. 79A.

Existing 110 mph speed maintained Hudson‐

Albany‐ Schenectady

79C 79 mph 60 mph 7:41 8.10 151.60 131.13 20.47 2,379,000* Adds a new dedicated single main track to existing alignment 

(15‐ft. track centers). Adds 4 express service trains.

Existing 110 mph speed maintained Hudson‐

Albany‐ Schenectady

90A 90 mph 60 mph 7:43 2.50 137.65 123.51 14.41 2,267,000* Same improvements as 79B, but includes train control 

improvements to allow 90 MPH operation where supported 

by the alignment. Includes grade crossing warning system 

upgrades at all public crossings.

Existing 110 mph speed maintained Hudson‐

Albany‐ Schenectady

“90 mph Series:” Next step up (Class 5) in 

track standards (also requires PTC with in‐cab 

signaling). Uses current vehicle technology 

with possibility of integrated trainset.

90B 90 mph 64 mph 7:09 9.90 152.60 144.79 7.81 2,589,000* Adds a new dedicated single main track to existing alignment 

(15‐ft. track centers) / Includes PTC Signal System for new 

main track.

Existing 110 mph speed maintained Hudson‐

Albany‐Schenectady

110 110 mph 67 mph 6:51 10.80 154.70 155.62 (0.92) 2,775,000 *

Adds trains to increase frequency, including 4 express 

service trains/Adds a new dedicated single main track to 

existing alignment (30‐ft. track centers)/Includes PTC Signal 

System, including cab signals/Includes warning system 

upgrades

110 mph: Next step up (Class 6) in track 

standards (current top speed along dedicated 

track between Hudson‐Albany/Rensselaer and 

Schenectady). Uses current vehicle technology 

with possibility of integrated trainset.

125 125 mph 74 mph 5:38 15.00 278.63 183.60 95.03 3,188,000 **

New alignment on sealed corridor / Electrification of new 

track / Adds trains to increase frequency beyond level in 110 

alternative/ New stations / Elimination of grade crossings / 

New PTC Signal System

Ridership analysis based on the prior developed 

model and ridership numbers have a 

conservative bias. Buffalo to Albany is 18 miles 

shorter than existing Corridor, Albany ‐ NYC on 

existing. Niagara Falls via 10 minute platform 

connection at Buffalo.

125 mph: the first speed threshold for 

electrified operation and the performance 

benefits achieved through electrically‐

powered trains

160 160 mph 85 mph 4:54 27.00 321.50 237.65 83.85 4,067,000 

***

New alignment on sealed corridor / Electrification of new 

track / Adds additional trains in excess of 110 alternative / 

New stations / Elimination of grade crossings / New PTC 

Signal System

Ridership analysis based on the prior developed 

model and ridership numbers have a 

conservative bias. Buffalo to Albany is 18 miles 

shorter, Albany ‐ NYC is 39 miles longer than 

existing Corridor via connection to Northeast 

Corridor at Rye, NY. Niagara Falls via 10 minute 

platform connection at Buffalo.

160 mph: practical upper limit of electrified 

dynamic tilt trains, such as the Amtrak Acela, 

that provide faster operating speeds on 

curves

220 220 mph 93 mph 4:29 39.00 333.40 298.83 34.57 5,122,000 

****

New alignment on sealed corridor / Electrification of new 

track / Adds trains

to increase frequency beyond level in 110 alternative, 

including 4 express service trains / New stations / 

Elimination of grade crossings / New PTC Signal System / 

220 mph includes specialized train sets

Ridership analysis based on the prior developed 

model and ridership numbers have a 

conservative bias. Buffalo to Albany is 18 miles 

shorter, Albany ‐ NYC is 39 miles longer than 

existing Corridor via connection to Northeast 

Corridor at Rye, NY. Niagara Falls via 10 minute 

platform connection at Buffalo.

220 mph: practical upper limit of world class 

high speed rail operations in France, 

Germany, Spain, Japan and China

* Ridership numbers are based on initial operating plans with 13 round trips between NYP (Penn Station) and Buffalo

** Ridership numbers are based on operating plan with 125 MPH MAS operating speed in conjunction with the existing service plan along the Empire Corridor. Total number of 15 round trips between NYP‐NFL, with stops at ALB, UCA, SYR, ROC and BFX

*** Ridership numbers are based on operating plans with 160 MPH MAS operating speed in conjunction with the existing service plan along the Empire Corridor. Total number of 15 round trips between NYP‐NFL, with stops at ALB, UCA, SYR, ROC and BFX

**** Ridership numbers are based on operating plans with 220 MPH MAS operating speed in conjunction with the existing service plan along the Empire Corridor. Total number of 15 round trips between NYP‐NFL, with stops at ALB, UCA, SYR, ROC and BFX

1 Original Ridership model was designed to analyze the effect in the improvement of the Empire Corridor Rail Service. This model does not fully capture the ridership benefits associated with Very High Speed Rail which would be an much enhanced and new travel mode along this corridor.
This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix C – Alternatives Development and Screening Report Tier 1 Draft EIS 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page C-5 

New York State Department of Transportation 

1.3.1. Alternative 79 

The 79 mph MAS alternative was developed with three variations, each of which represented 

different levels of rail infrastructure improvements, and, therefore, associated costs. These subalternatives were termed Alternative 79A, Alternative 79B and Alternative 79C. All three of the 79 

mph alternatives were to provide greater reliability and fewer conflicts with existing and future 

CSXT freight movements along the Empire Corridor West segment (under all cases, service 

characteristics along Empire Corridor South between Albany-Rensselaer and New York Penn Station 

would remain unchanged). 

Alignment and Service 

Alternative 79A is focused on improving the reliability of existing passenger rail service. The 

frequency of service would remain at four round trips a day. Current on-time performance is low, 

discouraging ridership and adding to Amtrak operating costs. The goal of the 79 alternatives is to 

incorporate sufficient capital improvements to the rail system to ensure 85-90 percent on- time 

performance between Albany, Buffalo and Niagara Falls. To accomplish this, under Alternative 79A, 

the existing Empire Corridor track alignment would be used, which includes track, signal and station 

projects already approved by FRA as part of the Base Alternative, and additional capacity and station 

improvements. 

Alternative 79B includes each of the improvements identified under Alternative 79A, along with 

service improvements that increase train frequency from four (4) to eight (8) round trips a day. 

Under Alternative 79C, all capacity and service improvements made under Alternative 79B would be 

made in addition to the construction of a dedicated third main track reserved largely for passenger 

trains, and segregated both physically and operationally from virtually all freight rail traffic. For 

Alternative 79C, the conceptual track improvements include a dedicated passenger track between 

MP 167 and MP 433, and the addition of five segments of fourth main track to facilitate “flying 

meets” between opposing direction passenger trains, in which trains can pass at normal speeds, 

with neither train needing to slow or stop to allow the other to pass. 

Ridership Travel Time and Capital Costs 

As indicated in Exhibit C-2, Alternatives 79A-79C have an estimated cost of 4.3 to 23 times greater 

than the Base Alternative cost of $350 million, and result in a 30 - 50 percent increase in ridership. 

Alternative 79A results in a minimal 24 minute time savings over the Base Alternative with a $1.15 

billion dollar greater investment required, while 79C results in a 54 minute time savings and a $7.8 

billion dollar greater investment over the base. When compared to the other alternatives, a similar 

or even lesser investment results in much greater time savings and slightly more ridership gains. 

Conclusion 

None of the 79 mph MAS alternatives provide a significant operational or cost advantage over the 90 

mph MAS alternatives, which are distinguished primarily by track structure improvements to 

support higher passenger train speeds where feasible within the existing corridor alignment.
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix C – Alternatives Development and Screening Report 

Page C-6 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program 

New York State Department of Transportation 

Because there was no substantive and positive differentiator of the 79 mph alternatives, they were 

not advanced for further consideration, as they did not meet the program purpose and need. In 

each case, the comparable 90 mph alternative showed superior trip time and ridership with a 

relatively small variance in estimated cost, resulting in the 90 mph MAS alternatives being retained 

over their slightly inferior 79 mph counterparts. 

1.3.2. Alternative 160 and Alternative 220 

The Very High Speed (VHS) Alternative 160 represents the practical upper limit of the existing 

Amtrak Acela-like electrified dynamic-tilt trains. The VHS Alternative 220 represents the current 

practical upper limit of world-class high speed rail operations as seen in France, Germany, Spain, 

Japan and China. Both involve the construction of a new, sealed two-track electrified railway 

paralleling Empire Corridor West and South, dedicated exclusively to high-speed passenger train 

service. 

 Alignment and Service 

As distinct from current operations running along the west side of Manhattan and over the Spuyten 

Duyvil bridge, the VHS alternatives would emerge from New York City on the existing Northeast 

Corridor heading east towards New Haven along the I-95 corridor. On Empire Corridor South, it is 

not feasible to augment or supplant the existing right-of-way parallel to the Hudson River with a 

VHS alignment, due to the lack of physical space: the current railway is bounded to its immediate 

west by the Hudson River and by various town centers and rock formations to its immediate east, 

such that widening the right-of-way could only be accomplished with severe disruption to the 

natural River environment and local communities and their town centers, and at extraordinary cost. 

The course of the river and the surrounding terrain being densely developed and relatively 

undulating would not support the addition of new tracks or the much straighter geometry required 

to attain VHS. 

Given the difficulties associated with VHS train operation in the existing Empire Corridor South, a 

number of new corridors between New York City and Albany were considered, all of which include 

difficult terrain in their own right, as well as service through densely populated areas or aligned 

with intensively used regional highways for much of the route. The corridors selected, however, 

while complicated by highway geometry, overpasses and interchanges, are designated as 

transportation corridors and could potentially support additional infrastructure, should it prove 

appropriate and affordable. 

The proposed VHS routing would branch onto a new, high-speed alignment just north of New 

Rochelle/Rye, heading northwest along the I-684 median on structure or at grade. The routing 

would merge onto I-84 and cross the Hudson River via a new heavy rail bridge (the I-84 Bridge 

cannot be cost-effectively re-engineered to accommodate the additional load of heavy inter-city 

trains). Roughly paralleling the I-84 alignment, the routing would either loop around Stewart 

Airport or proceed directly up the New York State Thruway (I-87) median to Albany, generally on 

viaduct structure to allow smoothing of tight curves while minimizing property acquisition and 

environmental impacts. This would result in an entirely new station and market configuration. In 

either case, however, conflicts with existing highway overpasses would require extraordinary 
Appendix C – Alternatives Development and Screening Report Tier 1 Draft EIS 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page C-7 

New York State Department of Transportation 

solutions, with the VHS right-of-way passing either deeply beneath or well above them, with 

concomitant engineering challenges and high costs. 

On the western corridor, the VHS options would connect the northern cities of Buffalo, Rochester, 

Syracuse and Albany, with new “rural” corridors away from the existing right-of-way, through 

generally open land. These new segments would re-connect with the existing right-of-way as it 

passes through the major cities via open areas or on structure, with some property acquisition likely 

required. 

Presuming an entirely separate VHS right-of-way between New York City and Albany as described 

above, attaining the high average speeds commensurate with the proposed investment would result 

in the likely diversion of VHS service from all but four of the existing Empire Corridor West stations. 

Albany-Rensselaer, Syracuse, Rochester and Buffalo-Exchange Street stations would serve both the 

VHS and any continued “legacy” Empire Corridor passenger service; the other stations – Utica, Rome, 

Schenectady – would be provided only the existing service, with no VHS stop in those cities. As such, 

there would be no synergies between existing commuter rail and high speed rail services in the 

corridor under these alternatives. With displacement of the VHS Empire Corridor South right-ofway to a corridor west of the Hudson River, it would not be possible to use Metro-North Railroad 

(MNR) commuter services to originate at a suburban station and connect to a high speed rail train. 

Ridership, Travel Time and Capital Costs 

The dedication of segregated right-of-way under the VHS alternatives would result in significant 

travel time savings between New York City and Niagara Falls (4:54 and 4:29 respectively for 

Alternative 160 and Alternative 220, versus the current 9:00 hour travel time using existing 

services), and commensurately higher estimated ridership (4.06 and 5.12 million respectively for 

Alternative 160 and Alternative 220). Travel gains for Alternative 160 and Alternative 220 would be 

roughly proportionate with the increase in speed, as the overall alignments would be of generally 

similar length, number of stops and service offerings. 

The costs for the two VHS alternatives include 40 additional route miles between Albany and New 

York and complex and costly viaduct construction for portions of the route. If Alternative 160 or 220 

options were advanced further, a “compromise” corridor alignment could possibly result that better 

balances use of existing and new corridors, which might result in lower viaduct costs. For purposes 

of this analysis, however, the VHS alignment is assumed to require a fully separate right-of-way, and 

therefore, results in a conservative estimate of capital cost. 

Mile-by-mile infrastructure quantities were not developed for the VHS alternatives. Rather, the work 

items associated with constructing the alternatives were aggregated into broad categories using 

average costs from industry standards. Property acquisition, miles of viaduct, major and minor river 

crossings, grade separations, and average track, signal and electric catenary wire system 

construction values were taken from other high-speed systems. Overall, the estimated costs for 

Alternatives 160 and 220, in 2015 dollars, are $27 billion and $39 billion, respectively. These costs 

range from 1.8 to 2.6 times more than the cost of Alternative 125, as shown in Exhibit C-2. 

Conclusion 

Both the 160 and 225 mph MAS alternatives have been screened from this Tier 1 EIS, as only modest 

(compared to Alternative 125) ridership and travel time gains would be gained at an immense cost, 

and with significant environmental and community impacts. An extraordinary level of capital 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix C – Alternatives Development and Screening Report 

Page C-8 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program 

New York State Department of Transportation 

investment would be required for straight, electrified track in a tightly constrained corridor where 

the right-of-way occupies a narrow sliver of land between the Hudson River to the west and 

challenging natural (rock outcroppings) and community features (densely populated towns 

surrounding the stations) to the east. Although these alternatives would meet program performance 

objectives and thereby satisfy the Purpose and Need, the improvements would come at a cost that is, 

by any current measure, financially infeasible at $37 billion (160 mph MAS) and $39 billion (220 

mph MAS), costs that are 30 to 43 times greater than the Amtrak intercity rail capital program for 

the entire United States was in FY2011. 

For all of these reasons, the VHS alternatives are not advanced for further development in the Tier 1 

Draft EIS. More prudent and feasible alternatives exist which confer transportation benefits more 

proportional to their costs, and which do not have such substantial negative costs, including 

property-takings, and community and environmental impacts. 

1.4. Feasible Alternatives Advanced for Further Study 

As a result of the preliminary screening, it was determined that Alternatives 90, 110 and 125 were 

appropriate for further development. Within Alternative 90, sub-alternatives were developed that 

were distinguished by their degree of reliance on existing CSXT mainline track for movement of 

passenger trains or by their inclusion of a new dedicated third main track (with fourth main track in 

selected locations) that would support most passenger train movements on tracks that do not also 

host freight trains. 

During alternatives screening, future ridership was forecast using a methodology that would permit 

a reasonable assessment of the mobility benefits of each alternative. From this analysis, it was clear 

that all of the alternatives considered would produce higher inter-city rail ridership in response to 

higher speed and shorter trip times compared to the Base Condition. Therefore, ridership was not a 

primary factor in eliminating any of the alternatives. For the alternatives retained for further 

analysis, these preliminary ridership estimates were further refined using a statistical ridership 

model based on detailed simulations of passenger rail service that were conducted to minimize 

conflicts between passenger and freight trains sharing Empire Corridor tracks and switches. 

 The following is an overview of the four build alternatives plus the Base Alternative that were 

advanced for further study: 

• Base Alternative: consists of eight capital improvement projects that have been funded from 

TIGER grants and other sources. 

• Alternative 90A: consists of 20 capital improvement projects previously identified for potential 

TIGER grants and other funding. This alternative would provide a 90 mph MAS and limited 

express service, and also includes the Base Alternative projects. 

• Alternative 90B: consists of additional areas of third track and fourth track and station 

improvements to accommodate a 90 mph MAS. This alternative also incorporates the 20 

Alternative 90A improvements, in addition to the eight Base Alternative projects. 

• Alternative 110: consists of additional areas of third track and fourth track and station 

improvements to permit of 110 mph MAS. This alternative also incorporates the 20 Alternative 

90A improvements, in addition to the eight Base Alternative improvements. 
Appendix C – Alternatives Development and Screening Report Tier 1 Draft EIS 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page C-9 

New York State Department of Transportation 

• Alternative 125: maintains existing (“legacy”) Empire Service and incorporates express service 

over a new, electrified, grade-separated two-track right-of-way for the Empire Corridor West 

segment, providing a 125 mph MAS between Albany-Rensselaer and Buffalo Exchange Street. At 

Syracuse and Rochester, the segregated right-of-way rejoins existing CSXT tracks and serves 

those stations. Alternative 125 incorporates Base Alternative improvements and those 

Alternative 90A improvements along the Hudson Line and Niagara Branch and the portions of 

Empire Corridor West that overlap with the new route. 

1.4.1. Alternatives without Significant New Mainline Track 

Alternative 90A features significant capital improvements, but not a new third or fourth main 

track on the existing Empire Corridor. The specific improvements included are based on an 

evaluation of potential capital projects developed for each segment of the corridor. Between New 

York and Albany-Rensselaer, improvements are based on those identified in the Hudson Line

Corridor Railroad Transportation Plan (2005), a joint effort among NYSDOT, CSXT, MNR and Amtrak. 

These fourteen improvements were identified in the plan with a likely year of implementation, 

based on operational need, capital cost, available funding and permitting/design status. 

West of Albany, some 33 improvement projects not already included in the Base Alternative were 

identified. These include projects from:

• NYSDOT ARRA grant applications to the FRA, which are, in turn, based on CSXT suggestions; 

• The New York State Rail Plan; and 

• Improvements suggested by the HNTB Team. 

As with New York-to-Albany projects, these improvements were designated with a likely year of 

implementation based on operational need, capital cost, available funding and permitting/design 

status. Priority was given to projects that reduce the incidence and severity of delays caused by 

passenger and freight trains conflicts on shared tracks. These delays were identified from the 2008 

Empire Corridor baseline simulation model, which was calibrated to reflect current 

operations in 2010, when this analysis was performed. The scatter plot shown in Exhibit C-3 —

Empire Corridor West: 2008 Delays shows the location of the current delays, along with their 

magnitude (the vertical axis represents the duration of a single delay event, with the top of the

chart representing a single delay lasting 4 1⁄2 hours). While passenger train delays (shown in 

magenta in the graph) were given highest priority for resolution, freight train delay (shown in blue) 

mitigation was also pursued. This is because the program Purpose and Need includes a goal to 

avoid degradation of freight rail service in the corridor as passenger rail service improvements are 

implemented. Further, delayed freight trains often result in secondary delays to passenger trains

due to congestion and loss of dispatching flexibility, so it is in the interest of both passenger and 

freight rail services to minimize them. 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix C – Alternatives Development and Screening Report 

Page C-10 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program 

New York State Department of Transportation 

Exhibit C-3 — Empire Corridor West: 2008 Delays 

West of Albany, the locations with the greatest magnitude of passenger delays in the simulation 

model are Syracuse, Rochester and Buffalo-Depew. Each of these stations has just a single 

passenger train platform edge, meaning that passenger trains are likely to be delayed by opposing 

direction passenger trains seeking to make a station stop at the same time. For this reason, double 

edge (one west-bound and one east-bound) platforms were given priority in the development of

Alternative 90A at these three stations. 

1.4.2. Alternatives with Significant New Mainline Track 

Alternatives 90A, 90B and 110 present an incremental approach to providing improved rail services 

on the Empire Corridor. The improvements common to all three alternatives include installation of 

increasing lengths of new third track along the Empire Corridor West right-of-way, straightening of 

curves to allow higher speeds, improvements to signal systems, improvements to existing or 

installation of new interlockings, and reconfigured stations and platforms. These options result in 

improved operational flexibility and reduced trip times. However, conflicts with freight trains are 

only reduced, not eliminated, and curves with reduced allowable speeds remain. Compared to 

Alternative 90A, Alternatives 90B and 110 feature significant new mainline track between 

Schenectady and Niagara Falls. These two alternatives are distinguished largely by the higher 

2008 Baseline Simulation Results - Empire Corridor West Delay Scatter Plot

0:00:00

0:30:00

1:00:00

1:30:00

2:00:00

2:30:00

3:00:00

3:30:00

4:00:00

4:30:00

440 420 400 380 360 340 320 300 280 260 240 220 200 180 160 140

Milepost Delay (HH:MM:SS)

Delays to Freight Delays to Passenger

BUF ALB Buffalo Depew Sta. 431.7 Rochester Station 371.0 Syracuse Station 291.4 Rome Station 251.3 Amsterdam Station 177.6 Albany - Rensselaer Sta. 142.1
Appendix C – Alternatives Development and Screening Report Tier 1 Draft EIS 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page C-11

New York State Department of Transportation 

design speed, 90 mph and 110 mph, respectively. Alternative 110 therefore produces somewhat 

faster service due to its higher speed and the inclusion of additional passing sidings (fourth track) 

that are not included in Alternative 90B. 

Per FRA regulations, both of these alternatives will all require a new train control system (such as 

Positive Train Control) over the Em p ir e Cor r id or W es t r ight -of- w ay to support operating

speeds higher than the current 79 mph. 

The alternatives with significant new mainline track include new Empire Corridor tracks between 

milepost (MP) 167 (just east of the junction with the Selkirk Branch at a location known as 

Hoffmans within the town of Glenville), to MP 433 (just west of Depew Station, Buffalo). These 

alternatives have been developed based on the requirements of single train simulations and meet 

locations, levels of service, desire to limit potential freight impacts and engineering requirements. 

Each alternative, at a minimum, would provide the same level of freight operational flexibility as 

exists currently, and each seeks to improve freight capacity by moving the passenger trains off of 

freight mainlines onto dedicated passenger tracks. 

For Alternative 90B, the conceptual track alignment consists of a dedicated passenger track 

between MP 167 and MP 433 with five additional segments of fourth main track to facilitate 

“flying meets” between opposing direction passenger trains. The new passenger track mainline is 

generally located 15 feet (ft.) to the north of the existing freight mainlines with the fourth main 

track segments located 15 ft. to the north of the dedicated passenger third track.

To limit conflicts between passenger and freight trains, several grade separations have been 

included in Alternative 90B. These are located near MP 279 (the east side of Dewitt Yard), MP 

366 (the east side of Rochester Yard), and MP 427 (just east of Buffalo-Depew), which are the 

locations of the most significant freight-passenger conflicts.

Alternative 110 adheres to a May 2010 framework agreement between CSXT and NYSDOT. It is 

intended to support 110 mph maximum speed passenger train operation, while remaining in 

compliance with CSXT design and safety standards, guidelines and policies. Most notably, it 

provides for a separated and dedicated track for any passenger train operating at speeds in excess 

of 90 mph, with a minimum of 30 ft. measured from the center line of the freight track to the 

center line of the proposed passenger track. In locations where it was not practical to meet the 

required 30 ft. offset, the dedicated passenger track is located 15 ft. from the freight mainline and 

the maximum speed is 90 mph. Alternative 110 includes six segments of dedicated fourth main 

track to facilitate “flying meets” between opposing direction passenger trains. Because the

existing two mainline tracks and former (now removed) third and fourth tracks are at 13- foot 

track centers or less, the 30-foot minimum separation has significant implications for t h i s 

alternative. While it is possible to locate the new passenger third mainline 30 ft. from the

existing freight tracks, providing a further 15 ft. for any fourth main track (a full 45 ft. from the

existing freight mainlines) is problematic and possibly cost- prohibitive. Therefore, the

segments of fourth main track have been located between the existing freight mainline and the 

proposed passenger third track; the maximum allowable speed on the fourth main track will be 

limited to 90 mph to comply with CSXT requirements. 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix C – Alternatives Development and Screening Report 

Page C-12 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program 

New York State Department of Transportation 

1.4.3. Very High Speed Alternatives with Complete Grade 

Separation 

The upper speed limit for dual-mode diesel and electric locomotives is 125 mph. As previously 

discussed, it is not feasible to augment or supplant the existing Empire Corridor South/Hudson 

River right-of-way between New York City and Albany, with a VHS alignment that could support 

125 mph train operation. Such an alignment would result in significant impacts to existing 

communities and infrastructure along the Hudson River, or to the River itself. Under Alternative 

125, train operation would be diesel between New York City and Albany at the current maximum 

authorized speed of 110 mph, and electric operation via overhead catenary wire on a new Empire 

West Corridor built for a 125 mph MAS to Buffalo, with a transfer at Buffalo Depew Station for the 

final leg to Niagara Falls. 

For passenger train speeds exceeding 110 mph up to 125 mph, FRA standards for protection of rail 

and road traffic state that “the railroad shall submit for FRA’s approval a complete description of the 

proposed barrier/warning system to address the protection of highway traffic and high-speed 

trains.” FRA guidelines indicate that such a barrier/warning system technology may not exist at this 

time. Alternatives to grade separation include consolidation and closure of highway, public or 

private crossings, which is possible at some locations, but impractical at others if rail freight services 

are to be maintained. At this time, therefore, complete grade separation at all crossings is assumed 

for Alternative 125. 

In general, Alternative 125 connects the major Empire Corridor West cities of Buffalo, Rochester, 

Syracuse and Albany with a new “rural” corridor away from but parallel to the existing right-of-way, 

through generally open land. These new segments re-connect with the existing right-of-way in the 

major cities via open areas or on structure, with some property acquisition likely to be required. 

This new, high speed passenger train-dedicated corridor at 125 mph MAS, making express stops 

only, reduces trip time by 45percent.

2. Engineering Assumptions and Discussion: Alternatives 90, 110 and 125 

The following engineering assumptions were derived based on review of both the NYSDOT/CSXT 

Framework Agreement (May 2010) and program goals. These assumptions served as initial 

information for discussion of the alternatives, and have since been modified based on further input: 

2.1. Alternative 90A 

Proposed tracks are assumed to be mixed use tracks and have been primarily laid out using CSXT 

design criteria of 5 inch Ea (superelevation), with 1.5 inch Eu (underbalance) for freight and 5 

inch Eu for Passenger, and No. 20 turnouts where feasible. 

• Proposed Tracks will be offset 15 feet from the existing tracks where feasible. 

• Existing track centers will be maintained in location where right-of-way is constrained.

• Proposed improvements will be constructed within the existing right-of-way. 
Appendix C – Alternatives Development and Screening Report Tier 1 Draft EIS 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page C-13

New York State Department of Transportation 

• Proposed tracks will allow 79 mph MAS where feasible. There are several existing physical 

constraints that prevent the proposed projects from obtaining 79 mph MAS. 

• Private and public crossings will be modified to accommodate the proposed tracks 

alignments. Crossing protection will be upgraded as necessary to accommodate the additional 

tracks and/or reconfigurations.

• Passing sidings (4th track) have been provided where feasible under alternative 79C to 

provide opportunities for meets without incurring delays. 

• In some locations, the existing tracks were shifted or realigned to meet the program 

requirements. 

2.2. Alternatives 90B and 110 

• New passenger tracks are assumed to be dedicated passenger tracks. The only time freight 

would be on these tracks is for local freight operations over short distances and occasional use 

during major track maintenance windows or operational emergencies. This means that 6” Ea, 5”

Eu, and No. 32.75 turnouts would be used on the new passenger tracks instead of the CSXT 

design criteria of 5” Ea, 1.5” Eu, and No. 20 turnouts. 

• Private and public crossings locations will be identified. Crossing protection options will be 

evaluated in Tier 2 consistent with the FRA’s Highway Rail Grade Crossing Guidelines for High 

Speed Rail. 

• For 110 mph operations, passing sidings (4th track) were assumed to have a 90 mph MAS and 

located 15 ft. from the existing mainline (that is between the existing mainline and the 30 ft. 

offset to a proposed 110 mph passenger track). Due to 80 mph operation through the diverging 

side of the number 32.75 turnouts at each end of the sidings and the distance required for the 

typical diesel powered train consist to accelerate from 80 mph to 110 mph (approximately 7.5 

miles compared to a little over one mile from 80 to 90 mph), the 90 mph limitation would not be 

considered significant to overall run times on a 10 mile long segment of fourth track. The cost of 

placing the sidings to the outside of the proposed passenger main, or 45 ft. from the existing 

number 1 track, exceeds the value of the slight improvement in run times of trains running 

through the sidings. The 110 mph alternative would include sections of dedicated single 

passenger mainline that would require significant right-of-way to achieve speeds greater than 90 

mph , and have been designed using a 15 ft. track center from the existing mainline and assigned 

a maximum speed of 90 mph. An example can be found from MP 328 to MP 350 shown on the 

110 mph engineered track schematic. 

• Where existing/relocated local freight sidings are present, it is assumed that the 110 mph track 

can be as close as 15 ft. to the freight siding. (If a 30-ft. track spacing is desired in these types of 

locations to achieve 110 mph, the passenger track MAS may need to be reduced to 90 mph 

through the area in question due to proximity of additional industry tracks and buildings, or may 

require relocation to create greater physical separation.)
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix C – Alternatives Development and Screening Report 

Page C-14 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program 

New York State Department of Transportation 

• Where passenger trains need to co-mingle with freight, No. 20 turnouts were used; where 

passenger only, No. 32.75 turnouts were used, generally at the ends of the passenger train 

passing sidings. 

• In some locations, the existing tracks were shifted or realigned to meet the design requirements. 

Grade separations of the new passenger mainline from the existing mainlines were used to avoid 

significant conflicts with freight trains at critical locations including the east approaches to 

Syracuse/ Dewitt Yard, Rochester, Buffalo-Depew. 

2.2.1. Alternative 110 – Brief Overview from a Track Engineering 

Perspective

A conceptual alignment to achieve 110 mph operation with 30 ft. track centers from the existing 

mainline tracks was developed in CADD using an ideal design approach to curve modifications, if 

it were physically possible to achieve the curve geometry and 30 ft. track centers, along with

engineer’s judgment to determine the highest speed attainable. Isolated curves with a design

speed less than 110 mph and locations where 30 ft. track centers were not feasible were given 

close scrutiny to determine an optimum balance among the goal of reduced trip time, cost, and 

environmental consequences. In some locations, a design speed of 90 mph was considered the 

best alignment possible and a 23- mile segment of very restrictive curves west of Syracuse, 

where an increase above 80 mph would incur miles of major realignment. 

2.2.2. Examples of Where Desired Speeds Were Attained With 

Additional Work 

1. Big Nose Curve

At Big Nose curve (MP 192.5, west of Amsterdam), 60 mph is the highest speed if the present 

alignment is retained. Recognizing the significant impact that an isolated 60 mph curve has on

the 110 mph alternative, a 90 mph curve easement w as defined onto the present NY State 

Route 5 location at the foot of the significant rock cut at the “nose.” Since NY State Route 5 is

about 20 ft. higher than the railroad at the base of the rock cut, it was determined that, 

rather than cutting the highway alignment further into the steep rock face, NY State Route 5 

could instead straddle the relocated railroad on a viaduct more or less parallel to the railroad. 

Construction phasing of this improvement under both rail and highway traffic would be difficult 

and even slight alteration to the significant regional visage of the “nose” could generate 

opposition. However, a workable solution to this very restrictive curve would provide significant 

benefits to the program. 

2. Tribes Hill Curve

At Tribes Hill curve (MP 182 west of Amsterdam), an existing curve of 60 mph is followed 

immediately by an eased curve in the opposite direction of 80 mph. A 90 mph design was 
Appendix C – Alternatives Development and Screening Report Tier 1 Draft EIS 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page C-15

New York State Department of Transportation 

achieved through both curves with a major realignment, including a 3,000 ft. cut up to 65 ft. 

deep through adjacent forest and farmland. 

2.2.3. Examples of Where Desired Speeds Were Not Attained Due to 

Physical Constraints 

1. Little Falls

Little Falls (east of Utica) remains highly problematic due to both a very restrictive right-of-way 

width and sharp curves. Currently, a double- ended freight siding passes through Little Falls 

between CP215 and CP218. There is not enough room to maintain both the siding and a new 

passenger track through the narrowest part of the right-of-way in the town center. With several 

apparent freight consignees in Little Falls, access was maintained for local freight service from

the west at CP218, with a separate siding ending in the center of Little Falls before the most 

restrictive section, where a short runaround track was pr ovid ed at the end of that track. 

An existing three- degree curve in the center of town dictates a speed of only 60 mph. Several 

curves on both approaches to Little Falls have speeds less than 110 mph, which is not a 

significant issue since actual speeds on those curves will be much lower in light of the governing

60 mph curve at Little Falls. 

2. Restrictive Curves West of Syracuse

From MP328 to 351, there is a series of consecutive curves that limits speeds from 70 to 100 

mph, with many at 80 mph. Although it may be possible to remedy a few of these curves, 

given the fact that it takes so long for a train to recover speeds in the range of 80 to 110 mph,

unless all of the curves can be modified, there is little to be gained in modifying the few curves 

that can be feasibly realigned for 110 mph operation. 

2.3. Alternative 125 

 Two-track, electrified, dedicated high speed passenger corridor between Albany and Buffalo. 

 In general, Alternative 125 connects the major Empire Corridor West cities of Buffalo, 

Rochester, Syracuse and Albany with a new “rural” corridor away from and parallel to the 

existing right-of-way, through generally open land. These new segments re-connect with the 

existing right-of-way in the major cities via open areas or on structure, with some property 

acquisition likely to be required. 

 New York City to Albany will be diesel operation on existing Empire Corridor track. 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix C – Alternatives Development and Screening Report 

Page C-16 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program 

New York State Department of Transportation 

3. High-Level Costs for Alternatives 90, 110 and 125 

3.1. Engineering Cost Estimate Methodology and Assumptions for 

Alternatives 90 and 110 

Infrastructure Capital Costs

The cost estimates for the alternatives are derived from the conceptually engineered track 

alignments created to define the infrastructure improvements necessary for each alternative. 

In conjunction with the engineered track alignments, aerial photography, approximate right-ofway lines, locations of existing freight mainlines and sidings, grade crossings, overhead and 

undergrade bridge locations, and existing topography were used to develop the associated 

order-of-magnitude cost estimates. Signal costs (where applicable) have been developed using a 

per-mile cost based on the proposed infrastructure. 

Rolling Stock Assumptions and Costs 

The cost estimates assume that only the additional rolling stock necessary to allow the 

incremental additional trips between New York City Pennsylvania Station and Niagara Falls 

will be included in the cost estimates for the alternatives. The cost of rolling stock necessary to 

operate the current service is not considered part of this analysis. The program assumes that 

out of the four additional round trips, two trips will be addressed with two train sets, while

the other trips will be covered by one-way daily trips per train set. This means a total of six new 

train sets with two spare train sets; therefore, a total of eight train sets are assumed for this 

program. For conventional locomotive-hauled train sets, $5 million per locomotive and $3 

million per coach were assumed, including spare parts, training programs, manuals, soft costs, 

etc. I n s u m , $26 million per train set, or $208 million for new rolling stock, was assumed. 

As rolling stock values are reasonably well documented, a 5percent contingency is applied to 

account for uncertainties in final specifications for the particular service characteristics and 

signal control requirements yet to be determined.

Contingency Factor 

Planning studies typically have large contingency factors (30%-35% or greater). Considering

the length of this study area at 463 miles (over approximately 300 miles of which there are to be 

considerable infrastructure improvements), the diversity of the proposed alternatives (the 90 

mph and 110 mph alternatives have considerable lengths of proposed track re-alignments 

outside the current railroad right-of-way), and the sheer magnitude of unknowns (bridge

replacements vs. rehabilitations, volume of earthwork, property/building acquisitions, station 

design and amenities, final interlocking configurations, utility relocations, construction 

phasing issues, stakeholder requirements, etc.), a contingency of 35percent was applied to

estimates for alternatives with maximum operating speeds of 90 mph and higher. The Base 

Alternative has no contingency, since the component improvements have been approved and 

funded, and design is far along or complete. 
Appendix C – Alternatives Development and Screening Report Tier 1 Draft EIS 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page C-17

New York State Department of Transportation 

Design/Engineering Costs

It was assumed that an additional 20percent of the infrastructure costs would be allocated 

for engineering, permitting, construction inspection, administration and force account fees.

Escalation Costs 

The estimates were developed with 2015 as the base year, to allow easy comparison among 

alternative capital costs in relatively current dollars. Where costs were estimated (or, as in the 

case of rolling stock purchases, known) in 2009, 2010, or 2011 dollars, these costs were 

escalated at 4percent compounded annually until the 2015 base year value was established. 

Details of Alternative-specific estimates 

3.2. Alternative 90A 

Alternative 90A is essentially contained within the current and/or historic New York 

Central/CSXT railroad footprint. Estimating its cost was accomplished with five major 

categories of improvements: Track, Control Points, Grade Crossings, Bridges, and Station 

Facilities. Refer to Exhibit C- 4 for additional information.
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix C – Alternatives Development and Screening Report 

Page C-18 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program 

New York State Department of Transportation 

Exhibit C-4 —Unit Cost Assumptions for All Alternatives 

Property Track & Signals Bridges & Structures Roads & Crossings

Property Acq. (Per Acre)

Subgrade Prep. & SubBallast Erosion Control Highway Reloc. (Per Sy)

$40,000 Marsh $12.00 per SY $12 per LF $140 Secondary

$85,000 Farmland $224 Highway

$200,000 Suburban

$800,000 Town

Building Acquisition And 

Removal (Per Sf) New Track (Per Track-Foot)

Drainage Pipes & Box

Culverts (Per Sf)

Grade Crossings Private 

(Each)

$200 Residence $175 Yard or Spur $125 Pipe

$5,000

per track

$350 Business $225 Main Track $1,000 60-100 sf

$1,800 100-140 sf

Clearing (Per Acre)

Track Throws (Per TrackFoot) Bridge Demo (Per Sf)Grade Crossings 

Public (Per Track-Foot)

$12,000 Country $40 5 feet or less $175 Conc. $2,800 Single Trk.

$16,000 Town $80 5 to 13 feet $85

Steel 

Girder $3,200 Double Trk.

$20,000 City $125 Steel Truss $3,600 Triple Trk.

Fill Section (Per Cy)

Retire Track (Per TrackFoot) New Bridges (Per Sf) Warning System (Each)

$12 Open $25 Main Trk. $400 Conc. 36-48' $350,000 Small Rural

$20 Retained $15 Yard Trk. $375 Steel 30-60' $400,000 Medium

$12 Unused Trk. $650 Steel 60-80' $500,000

Larger 

Crossing

$900 Steel 80-120' $8,000 Farm/Private

Excavation (Per Cy) Retire Turnouts (Each) Walls (Per Sf)

$12 Earth $30,000 No. 8 $75 11-20' MSE

$50 Rock $32,000 No 10 $65 2-10' Conc

$54,000 No. 15 $120

10-20' 

Cant.

$72,000 No. 20 $180 20' + Cant.

Fencing (Per Lf) Turnouts (Each)

$20 8' CLF $85,000 No 8

$24 8' w/BW $95,000 No 10

$40 Security $195,000 No. 15

$235,000 No. 20

$2,000,000 No 32.7

Ditching (Per Lf)

Additive For Complex 

Phasing

$8 2 ft. or less Variable 20% to 150%

$12 2 to 4 feet

of Trackwork 

Value
Appendix C – Alternatives Development and Screening Report Tier 1 Draft EIS 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page C-19

New York State Department of Transportation 

3.3. Alternative 90B and 110 

Alternatives 90B and 110 encompass a combination of new and existing right-of-way 

requirements. For these alternatives, a more in-depth analysis was performed to capture as 

many potential costs as possible. For example, property acquisitions, highway relocations, 

retaining walls and an additive for complex phasing are a few examples of items quantified 

for Alternatives 90B 110. These costs have been totaled on a per-mile basis. For a complete 

list of items quantified, refer to Exhibit C-4 —Unit Cost Assumptions for All Alternatives. 

3.3.1. Engineering Cost Estimate Methodology and Assumptions for 

Alternative 125

The estimating methodology described in Section V. Engineering Cost Estimate Methodology and 

Assumptions: 90 and 110 was used as a basis for cost estimating Alternative 125. However, since 

mile-by-mile infrastructure quantities were not developed, the work items associated with 

constructing the alternatives were aggregated into the following broad categories: Right-of-way; 

Roadbed, Drainage, Access & Security; Structures; Track and Systems; Yards and Shops; and Station 

Improvements, as shown in Exhibit C-4 —Unit Cost Assumptions for All Alternatives. 

3.3.2. Additional Details on Selected Estimate Items 

Property Acquisitions. 

Due to the geographically extensive occurrence of property acquisition under both 

alternatives, five land categories were established: Prime City, Town, Suburban, Farmland and 

Marsh, to each of which was assigned a per-acre cost. With regard to building acquisition, 

three distinct categories were developed: Business, Residence, and Outbuilding. The costs were 

then assigned using a dollars-per-square-foot-(SF)-of-building-size factor based on the building 

footprint. 

Additive for Complex Track Construction Phasing. 

Various locations along the corridor will require complex construction phasing plans to

maintain existing freight and passenger service during construction. An additional cost ranging

from 20 percent to 150 percent of the standard trackwork cost, was assigned based on expected 

complexity. 

Status of PTC 

CSXT is in the early stages of implementing a PTC system for the Empire Corridor, having

filed an Implementation Plan with the FRA. If additional tracks are implemented for passengeronly operation at speeds exceeding 90 mph, they will be required to include PTC. Therefore, 

capital costs for Alternatives 90, 110 and 125 include the cost of PTC on all new (and assumed

to be dedicated passenger) mainline tracks. The cost of PTC implementation on existing CSXT 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix C – Alternatives Development and Screening Report 

Page C-20 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program 

New York State Department of Transportation 

track is the responsibility of CSXT, however, and is not included in the Tier 1 EIS capital cost 

estimates.

4. Constructability and Phasing Implications 

4.1. Constructability and Phasing Implications for Alternatives 90 

and 110 

The following section has been prepared pursuant to the Program Scope to identify the optimal

sequencing of construction staging in order to verify constructability. It also documents the 

operational implications of track outages and temporary speed restrictions. This has been done for 

the following two improvement scenarios:

1) Construction of new passenger mainline tracks adjacent to existing mixed use mainlines 

a. Example chosen from Alternative 90mph - MP 204 to MP 215 

2) Construction of proposed flyover 

a. Example chosen from Alternative 110mph - MP 278 to MP 281 

4.1.1. Example 1 – New Passenger Mainline Tracks in Alternative 

90mph - MP 204 to MP 215

Major Construction Components

The track work proposed in Alternative 90mph between MP 204 and MP 215 consists 

primarily of the following: 

• Approximately 12 miles of new dedicated passenger track (3rd track) 

• Approximately 10 miles of new dedicated passenger track (4th track/second main) 

• Installation of two new No. 32.75 turnouts

• Approximately three miles of existing freight siding realignments 

• Installation of four new No. 20 crossovers 

• Reconfiguration of four existing freight turnouts 

• Rehabilitation\Extension of six Under Grade Bridges to accommodate the 3rd and 4th tracks 

• Rehabilitation\extension of existing culverts to accommodate 3rd and 4th tracks, as well as 

relocated freight siding and potential service road

• One major curve geometry realignment and associated earth work 
Appendix C – Alternatives Development and Screening Report Tier 1 Draft EIS 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page C-21

New York State Department of Transportation 

• Two minor curve geometry realignments 

• One public railroad-highway grade crossing reconstruction 

• Fifteen private grade crossings 

• Up to 12 miles of service road construction. 

Construction Phasing/Sequencing Considerations 

All construction activities along the Empire Corridor shall be sequenced and phased to minimize 

negative impact on existing freight and passenger services. Additional consideration and planning 

will need to occur outside this Tier 1 analysis to ensure minimal delays and impacts on service. 

Some noteworthy items that need further investigation in Tier 2 are highlighted below: 

• Determine whether existing under grade bridge bays can be reused for the proposed tracks 

or if the bridges need to be extended; 

• Determine whether the existing overhead bridge can accommodate the proposed 

tracks without modifications; 

• Determine the type of grade crossing protection to be required at both the public and 

private crossing; 

• Determine the length and times work windows can be obtained for work near existing 

mainlines and track tie-ins; 

• Determine property acquisition requirements; and 

• Identify construction vehicle access points and obtain construction easements. 

Potential Construction Sequencing

There are numerous construction sequences that would allow for the construction of the 

proposed program. One of those logical construction sequences is detailed below: 

• Obtain construction access easements and prepare the subgrade up to the clearance limits 

allowed, while still maintaining existing service; 

• Extend culverts as necessary; 

• Extend/modify existing under grade bridges to accommodate proposed tracks; 

• Finish preparing subgrade up through and including tie-in points. Coordinate work windows; 

• Install crossovers from existing mainline to relocated freight tracks to maintain service; 

• Build as much of the relocated freight track in the clear. Tie the ends back to existing track 

over a work window, potentially without service delays; 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix C – Alternatives Development and Screening Report 

Page C-22 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program 

New York State Department of Transportation 

• Remove existing freight track no longer in service; 

• Build passenger tracks up to tie-in points; 

• Initiate grade crossing work; 

• Staged signal installation and testing to occur throughout construction; and 

• Finalize track and signal tie-ins. 

4.1.2. Example 2 – Proposed Flyover in Alternative 110mph - MP 278 

to MP 281 

Major Construction Components 

The track work proposed in Alternative 110mph between MP 278 and MP 281 is a grade 

separated overhead bridge and consists of primarily of the following: 

• Approximately two miles of new dedicated passenger track (3rd track)

• Approximately four miles of rehabilitated passenger track (3rd and 4th track)

• Installation of one new No. 32.75 turnout

• Approximately nine miles of existing freight mainline realignments 

• Installation of three new No. 20 crossovers 

• Installation of one new No. 20 turnout 

• Construction of retaining walls and Bridge Structure 

• Rehabilitation\extension of three Under Grade Bridges 

• Rehabilitation\extension of existing culverts 

• One major curve geometry realignment and associated earth work 

• Two minor curve geometry realignments 

• Two public railroad-highway grade crossing reconstruction 

• Two private grade crossings 

• Up to two miles of service road construction 

Construction Phasing/Sequencing Considerations 

All construction activities along the Empire Corridor shall be limited in their negative impact on

existing freight and passenger services. Additional consideration and planning will need to

occur outside this Tier 1 analysis to ensure minimal delays and impacts on service. Some 

noteworthy items that need further investigation in the Tier 2 are highlighted below: 

• Determine if the existing under grade bridge bays can be reused for the proposed tracks or if 

the bridges need to be extended; 

• Due to the large quantity of existing mainline relocations through this area, take great care 

to build as much of the new track while the existing mainlines stay in service. Minimize 

cutover and tie-in limits and complete within the allowable work windows; 
Appendix C – Alternatives Development and Screening Report Tier 1 Draft EIS 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page C-23

New York State Department of Transportation 

• Determine t h e type of grade crossing protection required at both the public and 

private crossings; 

• Determine the length and times work windows can be obtained for work near existing 

mainlines and track tie-ins; 

• Identify property acquisition; and 

• Finalize construction vehicle access points and o b t a i n temporary construction easements . 

Potential Construction Sequencing

There are many different construction sequences that would allow for the construction of 

the proposed program. One of those logical construction sequences is detailed below: 

• Obtain construction access easements and prepare the subgrade up to the clearance limits 

allowed – while still maintaining existing service. This includes retained fill areas approaching

the bridge structure; 

• Build new sections of track up to the clearance limits allowed; 

• Tie-in the new freight track ends with the existing mainlines; 

• Build the bridge structure and remaining retaining walls; 

• Install remaining new passenger track; 

• Initiate grade crossing work; and 

• Finalize signal installation and testing to occur throughout construction. 

4.2. Constructability and Phasing Implications for Alternative 125

The constructability and phasing implications of the very high speed corridor alternatives differ 

considerably from the alternatives that construct and modify track on the existing 

CSXT/Amtrak/Metro-North railroad corridors. In general, these differences are as follows: 

Advantages 

• Reduced need for freight railroad Roadway Worker Protection (RWP) support during 

construction; 

• Eliminated or reduced complexity of staging modifications to active freight tracks; 

• Eliminated conflicts with existing industrial and branch lines; and 

• Eliminated complexity of expanding/modifying existing at-grade roadway crossings. 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix C – Alternatives Development and Screening Report 

Page C-24 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program 

New York State Department of Transportation 

Disadvantages 

• Increased permitting and remediation requirements; 

• Significantly greater right-of-way acquisition for both right-of-way and for new power 

distribution substations and power line towers; 

• No potential for re-use of previously-constructed four-track right-of-way; and 

• Increased need for construction and management-related infrastructure and institutional 

processes. 
D 

Appendix D Rail Network Operations Simulation 
This page intentionally left blank. 
Appendix D – Rail Network Operations Simulation Tier 1 Draft EIS

Table of Contents

Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................................... i

1. Executive Summary................................................................................................................................................ D-1

2. Methodology.......................................................................................................................................................... D-7

2.1. Simulation Software ............................................................................................................................................................ D-7

2.1.1. Future Passenger Train Service .......................................................................................................................... D-8

2.1.2. 2008 Existing Operations ..................................................................................................................................... D-11

2.1.3. Base Alternative ....................................................................................................................................................... D-14

2.1.4. Alternative 90A ......................................................................................................................................................... D-18

2.1.5. Alternative 90B ......................................................................................................................................................... D-23

2.1.6. 2035 Alternative 110 ............................................................................................................................................. D-28

2.1.7. 2035 Alternative 125 ............................................................................................................................................. D-33

2.1.8. Operating Plan Comparison ................................................................................................................................ D-39

2.2. Future Freight Train Service ......................................................................................................................................... D-40

3. Simulation Results................................................................................................................................................ D-41

3.1. Current (2008) Operations ............................................................................................................................................ D-41

3.1.1. Passenger Operations ............................................................................................................................................ D-42

3.1.2. Freight Operations .................................................................................................................................................. D-45

3.2. 2035 Base Alternative ...................................................................................................................................................... D-46

3.2.1. Passenger Operations ............................................................................................................................................ D-46

3.2.2. Freight Operations .................................................................................................................................................. D-49

3.3. 2035 Alternative 90A ........................................................................................................................................................ D-50

3.3.1. Passenger Operations ............................................................................................................................................ D-50

3.3.2. Freight Operations .................................................................................................................................................. D-53

3.4. 2035 Alternative 90B ........................................................................................................................................................ D-54

3.4.1. Passenger Operations ............................................................................................................................................ D-54

3.4.2. Freight Operations .................................................................................................................................................. D-57

3.5. 2035 Alternative 110 ........................................................................................................................................................ D-58

3.5.1. Passenger Operations ............................................................................................................................................ D-58

3.5.2. Freight Operations .................................................................................................................................................. D-61

3.6. 2035 Alternative 125 ........................................................................................................................................................ D-62

3.6.1. Passenger Operations ............................................................................................................................................ D-62

3.6.2. Freight Operations .................................................................................................................................................. D-65

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page i 

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix D - Rail Network Operations Simulation 

List of Exhibits

Exhibit D-1 - Simulated Velocity Profiles of Trains in Alternatives 79C, 90B, 110 and 125 ....................................... D-3

Exhibit D-2 - Operating Plan Trip Time Comparisons From New York City ................................................................ D-3

Exhibit D-3 - Operating Plan Trip Time Comparisons from Albany............................................................................ D-4

Exhibit D-4 - NYSDOT Empire Corridor Fleet Needs .................................................................................................. D-5

Exhibit D-5 - Simulated Results – Passenger Trains................................................................................................... D-5

Exhibit D-6 - Simulated Freight Trip Time Statistics and Reliability – All Alternatives............................................... D-6

Exhibit D-7 - 2008 Existing – Number of Trains Originating from New York City and Servicing Other Stations........ D-8

Exhibit D-8 - 2035 Base Alternative– Number of Trains Originating from New York City and Servicing Other Stations

 D-9

Exhibit D-9 - 2035 Alternative 90A – Number of Trains Originating from New York City and Servicing Other Stations

 D-10

Exhibit D-10 - 2035 Alternative 90B/110 – Number of Trains Originating from New York City and Servicing Other 

Stations.................................................................................................................................................................... D-10

Exhibit D-11 - 2035 Alternative 125 – Number of Trains Originating from New York City and Servicing Other Stations

 D-11

Exhibit D-12 - Scheduled Trip Times – Existing Operations (October 27, 2008)...................................................... D-11

Exhibit D-13 - Scheduled Current Conditions – Eastbound Timetable (October 27, 2008)..................................... D-12

Exhibit D-14 - Current Conditions – Westbound Timetable (October 27, 2008)..................................................... D-13

Exhibit D-15 - Fastest Scheduled Trip Time Calculations......................................................................................... D-13

Exhibit D-16 - 2035 Base Alternative and Associated Scheduled Adjustments....................................................... D-15

Exhibit D-17 - Base Alternative Service Diagram..................................................................................................... D-16

Exhibit D-18 - Base Alternative– Eastbound Timetable........................................................................................... D-17

Exhibit D-19 - Base Alternative– Westbound Timetable ......................................................................................... D-18

Exhibit D-20 - Alternative 90A Service Diagram ...................................................................................................... D-19

Exhibit D-21 - Alternative 90A – Eastbound Timetable ........................................................................................... D-20

Exhibit D-22 - Alternative 90A – Westbound Timetable.......................................................................................... D-21

Exhibit D-23 - Alternative 90A Scheduled Run Times (with 10% Schedule Margin)................................................ D-22

Exhibit D-24 - Alternative 90A Trip Graph ............................................................................................................... D-23

Exhibit D-25 - Alternative 90B Service Diagram....................................................................................................... D-24

Exhibit D-26 - Alternative 90B – Eastbound Timetable ........................................................................................... D-25

Exhibit D-27 - Alternative 90B – Westbound Timetable.......................................................................................... D-26

Exhibit D-28 - Alternative 90B Scheduled Run Times (with 8% Schedule Margin).................................................. D-27

Exhibit D-29 - Alternative 90 B Trip Graph .............................................................................................................. D-28

Exhibit D-30 - Alternative 110 Service Diagram....................................................................................................... D-29

Exhibit D-31 - Alternative 110 – Eastbound Timetable............................................................................................ D-30

Page ii High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix D – Rail Network Operations Simulation Tier 1 Draft EIS

Exhibit D-32 - Alternative 110 – Westbound Timetable.......................................................................................... D-31

Exhibit D-33 - Alternative 110 Scheduled Run Times (with 8% Schedule Margin) .................................................. D-32

Exhibit D-34 - Alternative 110 Trip Graph ............................................................................................................... D-33

Exhibit D-35 - Alternative 125 Service Diagram....................................................................................................... D-34

Exhibit D-36 - Alternative 125 – Eastbound Timetable (AM)................................................................................... D-35

Exhibit D-37 - Alternative 125 – Eastbound Timetable (PM)................................................................................... D-36

Exhibit D-38 - Alternative 125 – Westbound Timetable (AM)................................................................................. D-37

Exhibit D-39 - Alternative 125 – Westbound Timetable (PM) ................................................................................. D-38

Exhibit D-40 - Average Scheduled Time Travel Speeds -New York to Niagara Falls ................................................ D-39

Exhibit D-41 - Average Scheduled Time Travel Speeds - Albany to Buffalo Exchange............................................. D-40

Exhibit D-42 - Weekly Empire Corridor CSXT Freight Train Movements – 2008 and 2035 ..................................... D-41

Exhibit D-43 - 2008 Existing Operations – Simulated Train OTP.............................................................................. D-42

Exhibit D-44 - 2008 Existing Operations – AM String Chart..................................................................................... D-43

Exhibit D-45 - 2008 Existing Operations – PM String Chart..................................................................................... D-44

Exhibit D-46 - Existing (2008) Simulated On-Time Performance – Passenger Trains.............................................. D-45

Exhibit D-47 - Existing (2008) Simulated Performance – Freight Trains.................................................................. D-45

Exhibit D-48 - Existing (2008) - Simulated Freight Trip Time Statistics and Reliability (Standard Deviation).......... D-45

Exhibit D-49 - 2035 Base Alternative– AM String Chart .......................................................................................... D-47

Exhibit D-50 - 2035 Base Alternative– PM String Chart........................................................................................... D-48

Exhibit D-51 - Base Alternative Simulated On-Time Performance – Passenger Trains............................................ D-49

Exhibit D-52 - 2035 Base Alternative Simulated Performance – Freight Trains ...................................................... D-49

Exhibit D-53 - 2035 Base Alternative - Simulated Freight Trip Time Statistics and Reliability (Standard Deviation) .. D49

Exhibit D-54 - 2035 Alternative 90A – AM String Chart........................................................................................... D-51

Exhibit D-55 - 2035 Alternative 90A – PM String Chart........................................................................................... D-52

Exhibit D-56 - 2035 Alternative 90A Simulated On-Time Performance – Passenger Trains.................................... D-53

Exhibit D-57 - 2035 Alternative 90A Simulated Performance – Freight Trains........................................................ D-53

Exhibit D-58 - 2035 Alternative 90A - Simulated Freight Trip Time Statistics and Reliability (Standard Deviation) D-54

Exhibit D-59 - 2035 Alternative 90B – AM String Chart........................................................................................... D-55

Exhibit D-60 - 2035 Alternative 90B – PM String Chart ........................................................................................... D-56

Exhibit D-61 - 2035 Alternative 90B On-Time Performance – Passenger Trains..................................................... D-57

Exhibit D-62 - 2035 Alternative 90B Simulated Performance – Freight Trains........................................................ D-57

Exhibit D-63 - 2035 Alternative 90B - Simulated Freight Trip Time Statistics and Reliability (Standard Deviation) D-58

Exhibit D-64 - 2035 Alternative 110 – AM String Chart ........................................................................................... D-59

Exhibit D-65 - 2035 Alternative 110 – PM String Chart ........................................................................................... D-60

Exhibit D-66 - 2035 Alternative 110 Simulated On-Time Performance – Passenger Trains.................................... D-61

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page iii

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix D - Rail Network Operations Simulation 

Exhibit D-67 - 2035 Alternative 110 Simulated Performance – Freight Trains........................................................ D-61

Exhibit D-68 - 2035 Alt 110 - Simulated Freight Trip Time Statistics and Reliability (Standard Deviation) ............. D-62

Exhibit D-69 - 2035 Alternative 125 – AM String Chart ........................................................................................... D-63

Exhibit D-70 - 2035 Alternative 125 – PM String Chart ........................................................................................... D-64

Exhibit D-71 - 2035 Alternative 125 Simulated On-Time Performance................................................................... D-65

Exhibit D-72 - 2035 Alternative 125 Simulated Performance – Freight Trains........................................................ D-65

Exhibit D-73 - 2035 Alternative 125 - Simulated Freight Trip Time Statistics and Reliability (Standard Deviation) D-66

Page iv High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix D – Rail Network Operations Simulation Tier 1 Draft EIS

1. Executive Summary

As part of the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program, detailed rail operations simulations were 

developed to model the alternatives and compare them against the future Base Alternative. The 

simulation analyses show that the four Empire Corridor “Build” alternatives are operationally 

feasible with highly acceptable passenger train schedule adherence and fluid freight operations. 

The dedicated third track alternatives (Alternatives 90B and 110) as well as the dedicated high 

speed corridor (Alternative 125) perform best, although the in-corridor improvements of 

Alternative 90A also support a much higher level of passenger service with only modest additional 

freight train congestion. All four Build alternatives produce simulated on-time performance results 

of 90 percent or better (based on 10 minute lateness thresholds at terminal end points). On-time 

performance is measured with respect to train schedules, which include successively shorter 

scheduled trip times as the maximum speed of each alternative increases. 

Average passenger train speed in the simulations (including intermediate station stops) increases 

as the maximum speed of each alternative increases. Passenger train delay (in terms of minutes of 

train delay per 100 passenger train-miles operated) shows improvement with the Base Alternative

(No Action) infrastructure and significantly greater improvement with the Build alternatives. 

The Average Train Lateness statistic decreases with the Build improvements, though Alternative 

125 has somewhat greater train lateness than the others. This is because Alternative 125 includes 

not only a new two-track electrified high speed rail line (with virtually no delays) but “legacy” 

service of four round trips per day on the existing Empire Corridor with only the Base Alternative 

infrastructure improvements. It is congestion on the existing corridor that accounts for the train 

arrival lateness in Alternative 125. 

In terms of freight train average speed, the passenger-focused capital improvements in the Base 

Alternative provide ancillary benefits to freight train operation. Average speed increases from 27.4 

to 30.3 MPH, both as a result of the Base Alternative improvements and CSXT’s emphasis on future 

intermodal service growth. Comparing the Base Alternative with the four “Build” alternatives 

(where freight operating volumes were held constant across all five simulations), Alternative 90A 

shows some degradation in freight train average speed while the other alternatives are the same or 

better than the Base Alternative. 

Including future CSXT growth, freight train delay (minutes of delay per 100 miles operated) 

remains unchanged in both the existing and Base Alternative simulations. Comparing the Base 

Alternative versus the Build alternatives, Alternative 90A shows increased delays while the other 

alternatives have the same delay or reduced delay. This analysis was performed prior to the final 

definition of the Base Alternative. As simulated, the Base Alternative included the Rochester Area 

Third Track (CP 382 to CP 393) that provides freight capacity benefits. With this project no longer 

included in the Base Alternative, its freight performance is likely somewhat degraded. This means 

that Alternative 90A may no longer show increased freight delays versus the Base Alternative. 

Corridor average travel times between Selkirk Yard and Buffalo improve from 9:17 in the Current 

(2008) simulation to 8:14 in the simulation of the Base Alternative due to capacity improvements 

on the line and the increased prevalence of higher performance intermodal trains. The average 

freight train trip increases slightly to 8:23 in Alternative 90A; the other three “Build” alternatives 

have identical or superior freight trip times compared with the Base Alternative. As was noted 

above, the final definition of the Base Alternative likely results in Alternative 90A freight average 

travel times comparable to the Base. 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page D-1 

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix D - Rail Network Operations Simulation 

This appendix details the development of operating plans for the alternatives developed for the 

High Speed Empire Corridor Program Tier 1 Draft EIS and presents the rail operations network 

simulations analysis for these alternatives. The operating plans have been developed for the entire 

Empire Corridor rail network between Niagara Falls and New York City. For the Empire Corridor 

West, between Niagara Falls and Albany-Rensselaer, new network simulations were developed. 

For the Empire Corridor South, between Albany-Rensselaer and New York City, network 

simulations and results previously developed as a part of the 2005 Hudson Line Corridor Railroad 

Transportation Plan were utilized for this program. 

This document summarizes operating plans for existing operations and the five alternatives 

developed as a part of this program including: 

1. Existing Conditions based on 2008 Operations

2. Base Alternative 

3. Alternative 90A – Trips operate over an upgraded existing corridor at a maximum of 90 MPH

4. Alternative 90B – Trips operate over the corridor using a designated “passenger only” track and 

long passing sidings/sections of double “passenger only” track) with a maximum speed of 

90 MPH,

5. Alternative 110 – Trips operate over the corridor using a designated “passenger only” track and 

long passing sidings/sections of double “passenger only” track) with a maximum speed of 

110 MPH

6. Alternative 125 – Trips operate over the existing corridor and also over a new double track 

electrified line that parallels the existing corridor with a maximum speed of 125 MPH.

Existing conditions are based on 2008 operations, rather than more recent data, because Empire 

Corridor freight volumes declined significantly in the 2009-2010 timeframe due to the economic 

downturn. From 1990 through 2008, CSXT experienced daily train growth at an annualized rate of 

2.96 percent. From 2008 to 2009, CSXT train volume system-wide fell by about 13 percent. CSXT 

traffic levels are expected to recover over the next several years as the economy improves, leading 

to the selection of 2008 volumes as representative of current train volumes absent the impact of the 

economic downturn. Exhibit D-1 shows a velocity profile comparison of a single train traveling 

from Schenectady to Buffalo. The 79, 90 and 110 plots reflect dedicated third track alignments, 

rather than travel on the existing shared use passenger/freight tracks. Alternative 125 shows the 

higher performance of an electrified dedicated high speed rail line. 

Page D-2 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix D – Rail Network Operations Simulation Tier 1 Draft EIS

Exhibit D-1 - Simulated Velocity Profiles of Trains in Alternatives 79C, 90B, 110 and 125 

Exhibit D-2 provides a comparison of trip times from New York City to cities along the corridor for 

each of the operating plans. The travel times for current (2008) and Base Alternative operations 

are virtually the same; only “Current” values are shown. With the exception of the current operating 

plan, results indicate reduced trip times for each successive plan.

Exhibit D-2 - Operating Plan Trip Time Comparisons From New York City

To:

Alternative

Base 90A* 90B 110

125 

Express 

125 

Regional

Albany 2:30 2:13 2:13 2:13 2:15 2:19

Schenectady 3:06 2:53 2:47 2:50 2:59

Amsterdam 3:15 3:01 3:04 3:03 3:07

Utica 4:23 4:13 3:55 3:51 4:19

Rome 4:29 4:15 4:07 4:02 4:24

Syracuse 5:24 4:51 4:48 4:42 3:39 5:24

Rochester 6:41 6:06 5:55 5:45 4:25 6:42

Buffalo Depew 7:45 7:04 6:48 6:34

Buffalo Exchange Street 7:49 7:06 6:57 6:45 5:10** 7:52

Niagara Falls 9:06 8:08 7:36 7:22 6:02*** 8:40

Note: All speed values refer to maximum passenger train speed between Schenectady and Niagara Falls. All alternatives will operate at 

speeds up to 110 MPH between Albany-Rensselaer and Schenectady, 125 MPH for Alternative 125, as well as between AlbanyRensselaer and Hudson.

* Note 1: Based on average of express and local services

** Note 2: New station just south of Buffalo Exchange

*** Note 3: Via shuttle train from Buffalo; through service from NY also operated.

Exhibit D-3 provides a comparison of trip times from Albany to Empire Corridor West destinations

for each of the operating plans. With the exception of the current (2008) operating plan, results 

indicate reduced trip times for each successive plan.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page D-3 

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix D - Rail Network Operations Simulation 

Exhibit D-3 - Operating Plan Trip Time Comparisons from Albany

To:

Alternative

Base 90A* 90B 110 

125 

Express

125 

Regional

Schenectady 0:18 0:18 0:17 0:17 0:19

Amsterdam 0:35 0:35 0:34 0:33 0:36

Utica 1:33 1:33 1:21 1:17 1:36

Rome 1:48 1:49 1:37 1:32 1:53

Syracuse 2:34 2:22 2:14 2:08 1:14 2:42

Rochester 3:51 3:38 3:21 3:11 2:00 3:59

Buffalo Depew 4:55 4:35 4:14 4:00

Buffalo Exchange Street 5:09 4:47 4:27 4:15 2:45** 5:09

Niagara Falls 6:26 5:48 5:06 4:52 3:37*** 6:08

Note: All speed values refer to maximum passenger train speed between Schenectady and Niagara Falls. All Alternatives will operate at 

speeds up to 110 MPH between Albany-Rensselaer and Schenectady, as well as between Albany-Rensselaer and Hudson. 

* Note 1: Based on average of express and local services

** Note 2: New Station just south of Buffalo Exchange. 

*** Note 3: Via shuttle train from Buffalo; through service from NY also operated. 

An analysis of fleet needs for each alternative provides data on the number of trainsets required to 

meet service levels included in each alternative’s operating plan. A spare factor of 20 percent is

included in all current and future fleet needs, reflecting industry standard allowance for rolling 

stock in need of repair, undergoing repair, or undergoing long-term heavy overhaul. The total and 

incremental trainset requirements are shown in Exhibit D-4. The Base Alternative has the same 

rolling stock requirement as current operations. Alternatives 90A, 90B and 110 each require six 

additional train sets, while Alternative 125 (with a richer level of service than the others) requires 

17 additional train sets.

Page D-4 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix D – Rail Network Operations Simulation Tier 1 Draft EIS

Exhibit D-4 - NYSDOT Empire Corridor Fleet Needs

Start Location

2008 

Current

2035

Base 

Alternative 

2035

Alt 90A

2035 

Alt 90B

2035 

Alt 110

2035 

Alt 125

RequiredIncremental RequiredIncremental RequiredIncremental RequiredIncremental RequiredIncremental RequiredIncremental 

Albany 6 0 6 0 6 0 7 1 7 1 6 0

Niagara Falls 2 0 2 0 5 3 5 3 5 3 2 0

New York 

(Sunnyside Yard) 2 0 2 0 4 2 3 1 3 1 2 0

Rutland 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0

Montreal 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0

Toronto 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0

Buffalo 

(Dual Mode) 8 8

New York 

(Dual Mode) 6 6

TOTAL 

(Before Spares) 13 0 13 0 18 5 18 5 18 5 27 14

Spare Factor 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

TOTAL 

(With Spares) 16 0 16 0 22 6 22 6 22 6 33 17

Exhibit D-5 summarizes the rail network simulation results with respect to passenger service 

between Albany-Rensselaer and Niagara Falls. On-time performance is based on a 10-minute 

lateness threshold at end terminal points and includes not only the Empire Corridor service but the 

Amtrak Adirondack and Ethan Allen Express services that operate on the corridor between New 

York, Albany-Rensselaer and Schenectady. On-time performance is measured with respect to train 

schedules, which include successively shorter scheduled trip times as the maximum speed of each 

alternative increases. 

Exhibit D-5 - Simulated Results – Passenger Trains

Simulation

2008 

Current

2035

Base Alt 2035

Alt 90A

2035 

Alt 90B

2035 

Alt 110

2035 

Alt 125

Passenger train on-time performance (%)(1) 47.6% 83.0% 92.4% 95.4% 94.9% 96.4%

Average speed (MPH) 50.53 51.21 57.19 62.64 65.72 67.86(2)

Delay (Minutes per 100 Miles Operated) 7.47 1.75 1.87 0.34 0.11 0.45(3)

Average Train Lateness(5) 27.73 7.14 3.72 0.87 0.84 2.11(4)

(1) Based on 10 minute lateness threshold.

(2) Figure represents the average of both conventional and high speed trains. Conventional trains average 51 MPH while High 

Speed Trains average 74 MPH.

(3) Figure represents the average of both conventional and high speed trains. Conventional trains average 1.75 delay-minutes per 

100 miles operated while High Speed Trains (on a dedicated two-track corridor) experience no delay. 

(4) Figure represents the average of both conventional and high speed trains. Conventional trains average 7.14 minutes of lateness 

while High Speed Trains (on a dedicated two-track corridor) experience no lateness.

(5) No credit for early train arrivals.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page D-5 

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix D - Rail Network Operations Simulation 

Average passenger train speed in the simulations (including intermediate station stops) increases 

as the maximum speed of each alternative increases. Passenger train delay (in terms of minutes of 

train delay per 100 passenger train-miles operated) shows improvement with the Base Alternative 

infrastructure and significantly greater improvement with the Build alternatives. 

The Average Train Lateness statistic in Exhibit D-5 decreases with the Build improvements, though 

Alternative 125 has somewhat greater train lateness than the others. This is because Alternative 

125 includes not only a new two-track electrified high speed rail line (with virtually no delays) but 

“legacy” service of four round trips per day on the existing Empire Corridor with only the Base 

Alternative infrastructure improvements. It is congestion on the existing corridor that accounts for 

the average 2.11 minutes arrival lateness in Alternative 125. 

Exhibit D-6 summarizes the freight train performance over the corridor under the current, Base 

Alternatives and future “Build” alternatives, including average speed, train-minutes of delay per 

100 miles operated and average trip times. The average trip times include point-to-point times for 

those freight trains operating between Selkirk Yard (southwest of Albany), Syracuse and Buffalo, as 

well as standard deviation statistics. These statistics reflect the “spread” of the individual average 

trip times in the simulation; the lower the number, the more reliable the freight service. This is an 

important consideration for CSXT’s intermodal (trailer on flat car and container on flat car) services 

because the railroad has numerous contracts with customers that include incentive payments for 

consistent on-time performance. 

Exhibit D-6 - Simulated Freight Trip Time Statistics and Reliability – All Alternatives

2008 

Current

2035 

Future 2035 

Alt 90A

2035 

Alt 90B

2035 

Alt 110

2035 

Alt 125

Average Speed 27.4 30.3 29.4 31.1 30.8 30.3

Delay per 100 Miles Operated 36.83 36.31 42.10 32.78 34.95 36.31

Selkirk - 

Syracuse

Average Trip Time 4:43:58 4:14:33 4:11:12 3:49:54 3:57:39 4:14:33

Standard Deviation 1:39:28 1:20:34 1:21:22 1:03:00 1:17:32 1:20:34

Syracuse - 

Buffalo

Average Trip Time 4:34:25 4:11:14 4:31:35 4:25:20 4:40:11 4:11:14

Standard Deviation 1:58:25 0:57:51 0:54:38 0:57:25 1:37:34 0:57:51

Syracuse - 

Selkirk

Average Trip Time 4:58:34 4:06:31 3:55:31 4:09:00 4:09:31 4:06:31

Standard Deviation 1:54:59 1:15:07 1:04:27 1:32:33 1:58:42 1:15:07

Buffalo - 

Syracuse

Average Trip Time 4:27:26 4:04:16 4:04:20 4:17:19 4:11:11 4:04:16

Standard Deviation 1:41:11 1:22:23 1:20:26 1:46:01 1:23:48 1:22:23

Selkirk -

Buffalo

(Both Dir.)

Average Trip Time 9:06:55 8:13:39 8:23:18 8:09:14 8:03:41 8:13:39

Standard Deviation 2:19:39 1:37:01 2:04:26 1:50:52 1:39:20 1:37:01

In terms of average speed, the passenger-focused capital improvements in the Base Alternative 

provide ancillary benefits to freight train operation as well. Average speed increases from 27.4 to 

30.3 MPH, both as a result of the Base Alternative improvements and CSXT’s emphasis on future 

intermodal service growth. Comparing the Base Alternative with the four “Build” alternatives 

(where freight operating volumes were held constant across all five simulations), Alternative 90A 

shows some degradation in freight train average speed while the other alternatives are the same or 

better than the Base Alternative for this metric. This analysis was performed prior to the final 

definition of the Base Alternative. As simulated, the Base Alternative included the Rochester Area 

Page D-6 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix D – Rail Network Operations Simulation Tier 1 Draft EIS

Third Track (CP 382 to CP 393) that provides freight capacity benefits. With this project no longer 

included in the Base Alternative, its freight performance is likely somewhat degraded. This means 

that Alternative 90A may longer show increased freight delays or decreased average speed versus 

the Base Alternative. 

Including future CSXT growth, freight train delay (minutes of delay per 100 miles operated) 

remains unchanged in both the existing and Base Alternative simulations. Comparing the Base 

Alternative and the Build alternatives, Alternative 90A shows increased freight train delays while 

the other alternatives have the same delay or reduced delay.

Corridor travel times between Selkirk Yard and Buffalo are also shown in Exhibit D-6. The 2008 

average trip time of 9:17 drops to 8:14 in the simulation of the Base Alternative due to capacity 

improvements on the line and the increased prevalence of higher performance intermodal trains. 

The average freight train trip over the entire corridor (both directions) increases slightly to 8:23 in 

Alternative 90A; the other three “Build” alternatives have identical or shorter (faster) freight trip 

times compared with the Base Alternative. 

2. Methodology

2.1. Simulation Software

The single train passenger trip time simulations used to build the alternatives’ operating plans are 

based on the TrainOps® Rail Simulation Software from LTK. The multiple train network 

simulations used to evaluate the performance of the alternatives use the Rail Traffic Controller 

(RTC) software from Berkeley Simulation Software. RTC simulations were processed for seven 

days, plus one “warm up” day and one “cool down” day. The “warm up” day is used to populate all 

of the trains in the network, ensuring that, when output statistics are generated for the seven day 

period, the corridor is operating with trains from end to end. 

The RTC model includes all of the corridor trackage between Albany-Rensselaer and Niagara Falls, 

as well as connecting lines and branches. A companion simulation model, developed for the 

Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan, was used previously to model the corridor 

trackage between Albany-Rensselaer and New York City. The Transportation Plan was completed in 

2005 as the “blueprint” for improvements to the Hudson Line corridor between Albany and New 

York and reflects the technical leadership of NYSDOT, Metro-North, Amtrak, CSXT Transportation 

and Canadian Pacific Railway. With corridor improvements organized into short, medium and long 

term projects, the long-term improvements will support a New York-Albany 2:15 trip time with five 

stops, a 15 minute trip time improvement compared to the existing schedule). 

In order to assure the network simulation accurately represents conditions on the Empire Corridor; 

New York State Department of Transportation and CSXT have agreed that CSXT will review and 

assist NYSDOT in the network simulations associated with this program. This allows CSXT 

transportation planners and operations managers to comment on the dispatching reflected in the 

model and to identify changes to better represent “real world” operations. The Empire Corridor 

West model for the Base Alternative (No Action) has been reviewed by CSXT and the final 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page D-7 

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix D - Rail Network Operations Simulation 

simulation model used in the analysis includes simulation model clarifications suggested by CSXT’s 

modeling experts: 

 Extended yard leads,

 Greater Canadian Pacific Railways operating detail (Delanson-Schenectady-Saratoga),

 Updates to baseline CSXT operating plan,

 Additional detail on Norfolk Southern movements over CSXT in Buffalo,

 Additional detail on Mohawk, Adirondack & Northern movements over CSXT near Utica.

Additional review comments from CSXT are expected as a result of its review of the “Future Build” 

simulation models. 

2.1.1. Future Passenger Train Service

This section includes a description of each alternative, along with supporting timetables and trip 

travel times. Additional data is provided in Exhibit D-7 through Exhibit D-11 indicating the number 

of train trips originating in New York City under each of the alternative’s operating plans, specified 

in terms of daily round trips. 

Exhibit D-7 - 2008 Existing – Number of Trains Originating from New York City and Servicing Other 

Stations

The Base Alternative has the same number of passenger train round trips per day as current 

conditions, as shown in Exhibit D-8. 

Page D-8 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix D – Rail Network Operations Simulation Tier 1 Draft EIS

Exhibit D-8 - 2035 Base Alternative– Number of Trains Originating from New York City and 

Servicing Other Stations

Exhibit D-9 displays Alternative 90A train volumes serving New York City. Service to Albany 

increases from the present 13 round trips to 16 round trips, while service from New York to Buffalo 

increases from the present 4 round trips to 7 round trips (an 8th frequency is also added, but it 

originates westbound in Albany). Alternatives 90B and 110 (Exhibit D-10) train volumes are 

virtually the same as Alternative 90A. Alternative 125 has the highest scheduled train volumes, as 

shown in Exhibit D-11. 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page D-9 

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix D - Rail Network Operations Simulation 

Exhibit D-9 - 2035 Alternative 90A – Number of Trains Originating from New York City and 

Servicing Other Stations

Exhibit D-10 - 2035 Alternative 90B/110 – Number of Trains Originating from New York City and 

Servicing Other Stations

Page D-10 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix D – Rail Network Operations Simulation Tier 1 Draft EIS

Exhibit D-11 - 2035 Alternative 125 – Number of Trains Originating from New York City and 

Servicing Other Stations

2.1.2.2008 Existing Operations

Current (2008) scheduled service on the Empire Corridor shows a range of scheduled travel times 

between cities along the route. Exhibit D-12 provides a sample of running times for trips along 

with the eastbound and westbound timetables provided in Exhibit D-13 and Exhibit D-14. Trains 

48 and 49, highlighted in yellow in the tables, are the long-distance Amtrak Lake Shore Limited

between New York and Chicago. This train does not carry local passengers between New York, 

Albany-Rensselaer and intermediate points. 

Exhibit D-12 - Scheduled Trip Times – Existing Operations (October 27, 2008)

From/To:

280 

ExSun

284 

Daily

64 

Daily

288 

Sun only

Niagara Falls-Albany 5:45 5:50 6:15 6:50

Niagara Falls-New York 8:35 8:35 9:00 9:35

Buffalo Depew-Albany 4:55 5:00 5:25 6:00

Buffalo Depew-New York 7:45 7:45 8:10 8:45

Buffalo Exchange-Albany 5:10 5:15 5:40 6:15

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page D-11

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix D - Rail Network Operations Simulation 

Exhibit D-13 - Scheduled Current Conditions – Eastbound Timetable (October 27, 2008)

 Stations

Trains

280 -

ExSun

290 -

Mon-Fri

284 -

ExSun

292 -

Sat only

286 -

Sun only

48 -

Daily

68 -

Daily

64 -

Daily

296 -

Sun only

288 -

Sun only

Dep Montreal

Dep Plattsburgh

Dep Rutland

Dep Saratoga 9:43 AM 12:43 PM 3:53 PM 6:57 PM

Dep Niagara Falls 

(New Station)

Dep

Niagara Falls 

(Current 

Station)

4:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:50 AM 12:35 PM 2:00 PM

Arr Buffalo 

Dep Exchange Street 4:35 AM 7:35 AM 9:25 AM 1:10 PM 2:35 PM

Arr Buffalo Depew Dep 4:50 AM 7:50 AM 9:40 AM 9:35 AM 1:25 PM 2:50 PM

Arr Rochester Dep 5:47 AM 8:47 AM 10:37 AM 10:43 AM 2:27 PM 3:57 PM

Arr Syracuse Dep 7:05 AM 10:05 AM 11:55 AM 12:11 PM 3:50 PM 5:30 PM

Arr Rome Dep 7:45 AM 10:45 AM 12:35 PM 4:35 PM 6:10 PM

Arr Utica Dep 8:02 AM 11:02 AM 12:52 PM 1:17 PM 4:57 PM 6:34 PM

Arr Amsterdam Dep 9:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:49 PM 5:55 PM 7:35 PM

Arr Schenectady Dep 9:20 AM 10:23 AM 12:20 PM 1:15 PM 2:10 PM 2:55 PM 4:50 PM 6:15 PM 7:28 PM 8:15 PM

Arr AlbanyRensselaer9:45 AM 10:50 AM 12:50 PM 1:45 PM 2:50 PM 3:40 PM 5:40 PM 6:50 PM 7:50 PM 8:50 PM

Dep 10:05 AM 11:05 AM 1:05 PM 2:05 PM 3:05 PM 4:50 PM 6:05 PM 7:05 PM 8:05 PM 9:05 PM

Arr Hudson Dep 10:30 AM 11:30 AM 1:30 PM 2:30 PM 3:30 PM 5:16 PM 6:30 PM 7:30 PM 8:30 PM 9:30 PM

Dep Rhinecliff 10:51 AM 11:51 AM 1:51 PM 2:51 PM 3:51 PM 5:43 PM 6:51 PM 7:51 PM 8:51 PM 9:51 PM

Dep Poughkeepsie 11:06 AM 12:06 PM 2:06 PM 3:06 PM 4:06 PM 5:55 PM 7:06 PM 8:06 PM 9:06 PM 10:06 PM

Dep Croton-Harmon 11:45 AM 12:45 PM 2:45 PM 3:45 PM 4:45 PM 6:35 PM 7:45 PM 8:45 PM 9:45 PM 10:45 PM

Dep Yonkers 1:04 PM 3:04 PM 4:04 PM 5:04 PM 8:04 PM 9:04 PM 10:04 PM

Arr New York 12:35 PM 1:35 PM 3:35 PM 4:35 PM 5:35 PM 7:25 PM 8:35 PM 9:35 PM 10:35 PM 11:35 PM

Page D-12 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix D – Rail Network Operations Simulation Tier 1 Draft EIS

Exhibit D-14 - Current Conditions – Westbound Timetable (October 27, 2008)

 Stations

Trains

63 --

Daily

69 --

Daily

281 –

Daily

283 --

Mon-Fri

285 -

SaSu

291 --

ExFri

49 –

Mon-Fri

49 –

SaSu

293 --

Fri only

Dep New York 7:15 AM 8:20 AM 10:20 AM 1:20 PM 2:20 PM 3:20 PM 4:00 PM 3:45 PM 5:45 PM

Dep Yonkers 7:39 AM 8:44 AM 1:44 PM 2:44 PM 3:44 PM

Dep Croton-Harmon 7:58 AM 9:03 AM 11:01 AM 2:03 PM 3:03 PM 4:03 PM 4:43 PM 4:28 PM 6:26 PM

Dep Poughkeepsie 8:37 AM 9:42 AM 11:40 AM 2:42 PM 3:42 PM 4:42 PM 7:10 PM

Dep Rhinecliff 8:52 AM 9:57 AM 11:55 AM 2:57 PM 3:57 PM 4:57 PM 7:25 PM

Dep Hudson 9:15 AM 10:20 AM 12:18 PM 3:20 PM 4:20 PM 5:20 PM 7:48 PM

Arr AlbanyRensselaer 9:45 AM 10:50 AM 12:48 PM 3:50 PM 4:50 PM 5:50 PM 6:30 PM 6:15 PM 8:15 PM

Dep 10:00 AM 11:05 AM 1:05 PM 4:05 PM 5:05 PM 6:05 PM 7:05 PM 7:05 PM 8:25 PM

Arr Schenectady Dep 10:23 AM 11:29 AM 1:28 PM 4:28 PM 5:28 PM 6:29 PM 7:31 PM 7:31 PM 8:49 PM

Arr Amsterdam Dep 10:40 AM 4:45 PM 5:45 PM

Arr Utica Dep 11:39 AM 2:42 PM 5:44 PM 6:44 PM 8:44 PM 8:44 PM

Arr Rome Dep 11:53 AM 5:58 PM 6:58 PM

Arr Syracuse Dep 12:40 PM 3:40 PM 6:45 PM 7:45 PM 9:41 PM 9:41 PM

Arr Rochester Dep 1:58 PM 5:00 PM 8:05 PM 9:05 PM 11:00 PM 11:00 PM

Arr Buffalo Depew Dep 2:56 PM 6:00 PM 9:05 PM 10:05 PM 11:59 PM 11:59 PM

Arr Buffalo 

Dep Exchange Street 3:09 PM 6:15 PM 9:20 PM 10:20 PM

Arr

Niagara Falls 

(Current 

Station)

4:10 PM 7:10 PM 10:20 PM 11:15 PM

Dep Saratoga 11:57 AM 6:57 PM 9:17 PM

Arr Rutland

Dep Plattsburgh

Arr Montreal

As part of the current conditions, analysis is provided in indicating the results of average scheduled 

speeds for the fastest trips between Niagara Falls and New York City and Buffalo to Albany as 

shown in Exhibit D-15. 

Exhibit D-15 - Fastest Scheduled Trip Time Calculations

From/To: Train Number

Trip Time 

(HH:MM)

Trip Time 

(Minutes) Average Speed

Niagara Falls-New York 280 8:45 525 53

Buffalo Exchange-Albany 280 5:24 324 54

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page D-13

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix D - Rail Network Operations Simulation 

2.1.3.Base Alternative

The “Base Alternative” alternative assumes that only committed infrastructure improvements are 

made to the corridor and that train trips continue to operate at existing maximum speeds. This 

alternative’s operating plan is similar to current conditions, though a number of scheduled running 

time changes were made to reflect infrastructure changes on the corridor. These are shown in 

Exhibit D-16. Exhibit D-18 and Exhibit D-19 show the resultant operating plan; the train volumes 

are identical to those under current conditions. 

Page D-14 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix D – Simulation Report Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Exhibit D-16 - 2035 Base Alternative and Associated Scheduled Adjustments

PROJECT TRAINS SCHEDULE ADJUSTMENTS

Albany-Rensselaer Station

Improved signal and 

interlocking layout south of the 

station.

Westbound trains

Approaching AlbanyRensselaer

Trip time from Hudson to Albany was reduced by 2 minutes.

Eastbound trains 

departing AlbanyRensselaer

Current Albany departure times were maintained, and no adjustment was made to Albany-Hudson trip time. 

Trains accelerating do not suffer the same penalty as trains approaching the station. At this point, no analysis 

has been undertaken regarding any adjustments which might be necessary for trains arriving earlier at 

Poughkeepsie to fit with Poughkeepsie-Grand Central commuter trains.

Albany-Rensselaer Station

Improved signal and 

interlocking layout north of the 

station.

All westbound trains

All eastbound trains

Trip time between Albany-Rensselaer and Schenectady was reduced by two minutes.

Albany-Schenectady Double 

Track

Westbound trains 

continuing to the CPR

Trip time between Albany-Rensselaer and Schenectady reduced an additional one minute due to eliminating 

the need for a crossover move at Schenectady.

Eastbound trains 

arriving from the CPR

No trip time adjustment. It was assumed that trains will still make a crossover move from Track 1 to Track 2 

east of Schenectady Station.

Carrying time savings 

north to/from CPR 

points

The time saved in Train 69 was carried through to Saratoga, but not to Plattsburgh or Montreal due to the 

meet with Train 68 at Howards. Time savings were also carried through to Rutland for northbound trains but 

not for southbound trains due to contractual issues and the meet between 291 and 296.

Trains 64/291 Train 64 current waits at CP156 to meet Train 291 coming off the single track. The double track project will 

eliminate this conflict, and time attributed to the meet was removed from Train 64's schedule.

Delay analysis Delay analysis has not yet been performed to quantify reduction in delay minutes resulting from holding for 

meets when trains are out of slot. All existing recovery allowances were maintained.

Syracuse

Track improvements east of 

Syracuse Station including 

upgrading Tk 7 to 60 mph with 

bidirectional signals.

All westbound trains

All eastbound trains

Trip time between Syracuse and Rome was reduced by one minute for all trains. However, all existing 

recovery allowances were maintained.

Niagara Falls

New station

Westbound trains Trip time from Exchange Street to Niagara Falls was increased by six minutes. The new station is 

approximately two miles further west than the current Lockport Road station. Track speed is 20 MPH. It 

takes three minutes to travel one mile at 20 MPH. Absent any track upgrades, the trip from Exchange Street 

to the new station will require six additional minutes. It was also assumed that the current practice of 

turning westbound 280 series trains on the Tuscarora wye prior to entering the station would continue.

Eastbound 280 series 

trains.

Three minutes additional trip time was added to 280 series trains which originate at Niagara Falls. It was 

assumed that the six-minute trip time penalty would be partially mitigated by no longer pulling out from 

station tracks with hand thrown switches.

Eastbound Train 64 Six minutes trip time was added.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page D-15

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix D – Rail Network Operations Simulation 

Exhibit D-17 shows a color-coded service diagram of the New York State intercity rail services. The 

Lake Shore Limited, which connects New York City and Boston with Chicago, is shown in blue. The 

Adirondack, which connects New York City with Montreal via Albany and Plattsburgh, is shown in 

yellow. The Maple Leaf, which connects New York City and Toronto via Albany and Buffalo, is shown 

in magenta. Empire Service, some of which operates as New York-Albany round trips and some of 

which operates as New York-Niagara Falls round trips, is shown in green. 

Exhibit D-17 - Base Alternative Service Diagram

Page D-16 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix D – Rail Network Operations Simulation Tier 1 Draft EIS

Exhibit D-18 - Base Alternative– Eastbound Timetable

Stations/Train 

Numbers

Trains

280 -

ExSun

290 -

Mon-Fri

284 –

Daily

292 -

Sat only

48 -

Daily

68 -

Daily

64 –

Daily

296 -

Sun only

288 -

Sun only

Dep Montreal 9:30 AM

Dep Plattsburgh 12:35 PM

Dep Rutland 7:40 AM 10:35 AM 4:45 PM

Dep Saratoga 9:43 AM 12:43 PM 3:53 PM 6:57 PM

Dep Niagara Falls 

(New station) 3:50 AM 6:40 AM 12:43 PM 2:55 PM

Dep

Niagara Falls 

(Current 

Station)

-- -- -- --

Arr Buffalo 

Exchange Street

4:29 AM 7:19 AM 1:22 PM 3:34 PM

Dep 4:31 AM 7:21 AM 1:24 PM 3:36 PM

Arr Buffalo Depew 4:43 AM 7:33 AM 8:58 AM 1:36 PM 3:48 PM

Dep 4:47 AM 7:37 AM 9:08 AM 1:40 PM 3:52 PM

Arr Rochester 5:36 AM 8:26 AM 10:03 AM 2:31 PM 4:42 PM

Dep 5:40 AM 8:30 AM 10:08 AM 2:35 PM 4:46 PM

Arr Syracuse 6:58 AM 9:48 AM 11:33 AM 3:53 PM 6:04 PM

Dep 7:03 AM 9:53 AM 11:38 AM 3:58 PM 6:09 PM

Arr Rome 7:41 AM 10:31 AM no stop 4:36 PM 6:47 PM

Dep 7:43 AM 10:33 AM 4:37 PM 6:49 PM

Arr Utica 7:56 AM 10:48 AM 12:37 PM 4:50 PM 7:04 PM

Dep 7:59 AM 10:51 AM 12:42 PM 4:53 PM 7:07 PM

Arr Amsterdam 8:57 AM 11:49 AM no stop 5:51 PM 8:05 PM

Dep 8:59 AM 11:51 AM 5:53 PM 8:07 PM

Arr Schenectady 9:17 AM 10:21 AM 12:09 PM 1:14 PM 1:55 PM 4:48 PM 6:11 PM 7:26 PM 8:25 PM

Dep 9:19 AM 10:23 AM 12:11 PM 1:15 PM 2:00 PM 4:50 PM 6:13 PM 7:28 PM 8:27 PM

Arr AlbanyRensselaer9:50 AM 10:51 AM 12:50 PM 1:43 PM 2:50 PM 5:38 PM 6:47 PM 7:51 PM 9:05 PM

Dep 10:05 AM 11:05 AM 1:05 PM 2:05 PM 3:50 PM 6:05 PM 7:05 PM 8:05 PM 9:15 PM

Arr Hudson 10:29 AM 11:29 AM 1:29 PM 2:29 PM no stop 6:29 PM 7:29 PM 8:29 PM 9:39 PM

Dep 10:30 AM 11:30 AM 1:30 PM 2:30 PM 6:30 PM 7:30 PM 8:30 PM 9:40 PM

Dep Rhinecliff 10:51 AM 11:51 AM 1:51 PM 2:51 PM no stop 6:51 PM 7:51 PM 8:51 PM 10:01 PM

Dep Poughkeepsie 11:05 AM 12:05 PM 2:05 PM 3:05 PM 4:51 PM 7:05 PM 8:05 PM 9:05 PM 10:15 PM

Dep Croton-Harmon 11:45 AM 12:45 PM 2:45 PM 3:45 PM 5:33 PM 7:45 PM 8:45 PM 9:45 PM 10:55 PM

Dep Yonkers no stop 1:04 PM 3:04 PM 4:04 PM no stop 8:04 PM 9:04 PM 10:04 PM 11:14 PM

Arr New York 12:35 PM 1:35 PM 3:35 PM 4:35 PM 6:35 PM 8:40 PM 9:35 PM 10:35 PM 11:45 PM

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page D-17

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix D – Rail Network Operations Simulation 

Exhibit D-19 - Base Alternative– Westbound Timetable

2.1.4.Alternative 90A

Under Alternative 90A , trains would operate at a maximum speed of 90 MPH on the corridor 

between Schenectady Station and Buffalo Exchange Station. This alternative features four new round 

trips (eight one way trips) between Albany-Rensselaer Station and Niagara Falls Station as shown in 

Exhibit D-21 and Exhibit D-22. One of the westbound trips (the 6:00 AM westbound departure from 

Albany) originates in Albany while the remaining trips originate from New York Penn Station. New 

round trips would provide express service in western New York, stopping at Albany-Rensselaer, 

Syracuse, Rochester, Buffalo Depew, Buffalo Exchange Street and Niagara Falls Stations. The express 

service reduces trip times by eliminating some station stops. 

Exhibit D-23 shows the TrainOps simulation results for a single train trip over the corridor. These 

results were used to construct the Alternative 90A operating plan. In this alternative passenger trains 

and freight share tracks west of Hoffmans. For this scenario due to the sharing of tracks, a schedule 

margin of 10 percent (equivalent to increasing scheduled times by 10 percent over the best possible 

trip times) is appropriate. 

Stations/Train 

Numbers

Trains

63 --

Daily

69 –

Daily 281 283 291

49 -

Daily 293

Dep New York 7:15 AM 8:15 AM 10:15 AM 1:15 PM 3:15 PM 3:45 PM 5:45 PM

Dep Yonkers 7:39 AM 8:39 AM 10:39 AM 1:39 PM 3:39 PM

Dep Croton-Harmon 7:58 AM 8:58 AM 10:58 AM 1:58 PM 3:58 PM 4:29 PM 6:25 PM

Dep Poughkeepsie 8:38 AM 9:38 AM 11:38 AM 2:38 PM 4:38 PM 5:15 PM 7:11 PM

Dep Rhinecliff 8:52 AM 9:52 AM 11:52 AM 2:52 PM 4:52 PM 7:25 PM

Dep Hudson 9:15 AM 10:15 AM 12:15 PM 3:15 PM 5:15 PM 7:48 PM

Arr AlbanyRensselaer 9:43 AM 10:43 AM 12:43 PM 3:43 PM 5:43 PM 6:25 PM 8:16 PM

Dep 10:00 AM 11:03 AM 12:53 PM 3:53 PM 5:58 PM 7:05 PM 8:26 PM

Arr Schenectady 10:19 AM 11:21 AM 1:11 PM 4:11 PM 6:16 PM 7:27 PM 8:44 PM

Dep 10:21 AM 11:23 AM 1:13 PM 4:13 PM 6:18 PM 7:31 PM 8:46 PM

Arr Amsterdam 10:36 AM 1:28 PM 4:28 PM

Dep 10:38 AM 1:30 PM 4:30 PM

Arr Utica 11:35 AM 2:23 PM 5:27 PM 8:40 PM

Dep 11:37 AM 2:25 PM 5:29 PM 8:44 PM

Arr Rome 11:51 AM 2:38 PM 5:43 PM

Dep 11:53 AM 2:39 PM 5:44 PM

Arr Syracuse 12:38 PM 3:24 PM 6:29 PM 9:37 PM

Dep 12:42 PM 3:28 PM 6:33 PM 9:41 PM

Arr Rochester 1:54 PM 4:43 PM 7:43 PM 10:56 PM

Dep 1:58 PM 4:47 PM 7:47 PM 11:00 PM

Arr Buffalo Depew 3:01 PM 5:44 PM 8:44 PM 12:02 AM

Dep 3:04 PM 5:47 PM 8:47 PM 12:10 AM

Arr Buffalo 

Exchange Street

3:16 PM 5:59 PM 8:59 PM

Dep 3:18 PM 6:01 PM 9:01 PM

Arr

Niagara Falls 

(Current 

Station)

-- -- --

Arr Niagara Falls 

(New Station) 4:33 PM 7:16 PM 10:16 PM

Dep Saratoga 11:51 AM 6:46 PM 9:14 PM

Arr Rutland 8:59 PM 11:27 PM

Dep Plattsburgh 3:15 PM

Arr Montreal 7:10 PM

Page D-18 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix D – Rail Network Operations Simulation Tier 1 Draft EIS

Exhibit D-20 shows the service diagram for Alternative 90A. The light purple color represents the 

new express train service in this alternative, with stops only at New York, Albany, Syracuse, 

Rochester, Buffalo Depew, Buffalo Exchange and Niagara Falls. 

Exhibit D-20 - Alternative 90A Service Diagram

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page D-19

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix D – Rail Network Operations Simulation 

Exhibit D-21 - Alternative 90A – Eastbound Timetable

Stations/Train 

Numbers

 WNY

Express WNYExpress WNYExpress WNYExpress

230 232 234 2XX WNY-02 290 280 WNY-04 244 242 284 48 WNY-06 68 64 WNY-08

Mo-Fr Mo-Fr Mo-Fr Mo-Fr Daily Mo-Fri ExSun Daily Mo-Fr Mo-Fr Daily Daily Daily Daily Daily Daily

Dep Niagara Falls

(New Station) 4:25 AM 6:05 AM 7:55 AM 10:15 AM 11:40 AM 1:20 PM 3:10 PM

Arr Buffalo 

Exchange Street

5:01 AM 6:41 AM 8:31 AM 10:51 AM 12:16 PM 1:56 PM 3:46 PM

Dep 5:03 AM 6:43 AM 8:33 AM 10:53 AM 12:18 PM 1:58 PM 3:48 PM

Arr Buffalo Depew 5:15 AM 6:55 AM 8:45 AM 11:05 AM 9:30 AM 12:30 PM 2:10 PM 4:00 PM

Dep 5:19 AM 6:59 AM 8:49 AM 11:09 AM 9:40 AM 12:34 PM 2:14 PM 4:04 PM

Arr Rochester 6:05 AM 7:43 AM 9:35 AM 11:53 AM 10:35 AM 1:20 PM 2:58 PM 4:50 PM

Dep 6:10 AM 7:48 AM 9:40 AM 11:58 AM 10:40 AM 1:25 PM 3:03 PM 4:55 PM

Arr Syracuse 7:26 AM 9:04 AM 10:56 AM 1:14 PM 12:05 PM 2:41 PM 4:19 PM 6:11 PM

Dep 7:30 AM 9:09 AM 11:00 AM 1:19 PM 12:10 PM 2:45 PM 4:24 PM 6:15 PM

Arr

Rome 9:45 AM 1:55 PM 5:00 PM

Dep 9:47 AM 1:57 PM 5:02 PM

Arr Utica 8:20 AM 10:00 AM 11:50 AM 2:10 PM 1:09 PM 3:35 PM 5:15 PM 7:05 PM

Dep 8:22 AM 10:03 AM 11:52 AM 2:13 PM 1:14 PM 3:37 PM 5:18 PM 7:07 PM

Arr

Amsterdam 11:00 AM 3:10 PM 6:15 PM

Dep 11:02 AM 3:12 PM 6:17 PM

Arr

Schenectady 10:30 AM 11:20 AM 3:30 PM 2:27 PM 5:55 PM 6:35 PM

Dep 10:32 AM 11:22 AM 3:32 PM 2:32 PM 5:57 PM 6:37 PM

Arr AlbanyRensselaer

10:05 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:35 PM 4:10 PM 3:22 PM 5:20 PM 6:25 PM 7:15 PM 8:50 PM

Dep 5:20 AM 6:30 AM 7:00 AM 9:15 AM 10:15 AM 11:15 AM 12:15 PM 1:45 PM 2:15 PM 3:15 PM 4:25 PM 4:25 PM 5:30 PM 6:40 PM 7:30 PM 9:00 PM

Arr

Hudson 5:45 AM 6:55 AM 7:25 AM 9:39 AM 11:39 AM 12:39 PM 2:39 PM 3:39 PM 4:49 PM 7:04 PM 7:54 PM

Dep 5:46 AM 6:56 AM 7:26 AM 9:40 AM 11:40 AM 12:40 PM 2:40 PM 3:40 PM 4:50 PM 7:05 PM 7:55 PM

Dep Rhinecliff 6:06 AM 7:16 AM 7:46 AM 10:00 AM 12:00 PM 12:59 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:09 PM 7:25 PM 8:14 PM

Dep Poughkeepsie 10:14 AM 12:14 PM 1:13 PM 3:14 PM 4:14 PM 5:23 PM 7:39 PM 8:28 PM

Dep Croton-Harmon 6:54 AM 8:04 AM 10:50 AM 12:50 PM 1:49 PM 3:50 PM 4:50 PM 5:59 PM 6:10 PM 8:15 PM 9:04 PM

Dep Yonkers 1:09 PM 5:09 PM 8:34 PM 9:24 PM

Arr New York 7:35 AM 8:45 AM 9:15 AM 11:35 AM 12:20 PM 1:35 PM 2:35 PM 3:50 PM 4:35 PM 5:35 PM 6:45 PM 7:00 PM 7:35 PM 9:00 PM 9:50 PM 11:05 PM

Page D-20 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation 
Appendix D – Rail Network Operations Simulation Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Exhibit D-22 - Alternative 90A – Westbound Timetable

Stations/Train 

Numbers

WNY

EXPRESS WNYEXPRESS WNYEXPRESS WNYEXPRESS 

WNY-01 63 69 WNY-03 281 233 WNY-05 283 291 WNY-07 2XX 49 239 241 243 247X 245

Mo-Fr Daily Daily Daily Daily Daily Daily Daily

Rut –

ExFr/Al

b- Daily

Daily Daily Daily

Rut –

Fri/Alb -

Daily

Daily Daily Daily Daily

Dep New York 7:15 AM 8:15 AM 9:15 AM 10:15 AM 11:15 AM 12:15 PM 1:15 PM 2:15 PM 3:15 PM 3:45 PM 4:15 PM 5:45 PM 7:15 PM 8:50 PM 9:50 PM 10:50 PM

Dep Yonkers 7:37 AM 8:37 AM 10:37 AM 11:37 AM 1:37 PM 2:37 PM 7:37 PM 9:12 PM 10:12 PM 11:14 PM

Dep Croton-Harmon 7:57 AM 8:57 AM 10:57 AM 11:57 AM 1:57 PM 2:57 PM 4:59 PM 6:24 PM 7:57 PM 9:32 PM 10:32 PM 11:33 PM

Dep Poughkeepsie 8:34 AM 9:34 AM 11:34 AM 12:34 PM 2:34 PM 3:34 PM 5:45 PM 7:01 PM 8:34 PM 10:09 PM 11:09 PM 12:13 AM

Dep Rhinecliff 8:47 AM 9:47 AM 11:47 AM 12:47 PM 2:47 PM 3:47 PM 5:05 PM 7:14 PM 8:47 PM 10:22 PM 11:22 PM 12:27 AM

Dep Hudson 9:09 AM 10:09 AM 12:09 PM 1:09 PM 3:09 PM 4:09 PM 5:28 PM 7:36 PM 9:09 PM 10:44 PM 11:44 PM 12:50 AM

Arr AlbanyRensselaer

9:30 AM 10:30 AM 11:15 AM 12:30 PM 1:30 PM 2:15 PM 3:30 PM 4:30 PM 5:15 PM 5:55 PM 6:55 PM 7:57 PM 9:30 PM 11:05 PM 12:05 AM 1:18 AM

Dep 6:00 AM 9:45 AM 10:45 AM 11:25 AM 12:40 PM 2:25 PM 3:40 PM 4:45 PM 5:25 PM 7:35 PM 8:12 PM

Arr Schenectady 10:03 AM 11:03 AM 12:58 PM 3:58 PM 5:03 PM 7:57 PM 8:30 PM

Dep 10:05 AM 11:05 AM 1:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:05 PM 8:01 PM 8:32 PM

Arr Amsterdam 10:20 AM 1:15 PM 4:15 PM

Dep 10:22 AM 1:17 PM 4:17 PM

Arr Utica 11:18 AM 2:13 PM 5:13 PM 9:10 PM

Dep 11:20 AM 2:15 PM 5:15 PM 9:14 PM

Arr Rome 11:34 AM 2:29 PM 5:29 PM

Dep 11:35 AM 2:30 PM 5:30 PM

Arr Syracuse 8:13 AM 12:18 PM 1:38 PM 3:13 PM 4:38 PM 6:13 PM 7:38 PM 10:07 PM

Dep 8:17 AM 12:22 PM 1:42 PM 3:17 PM 4:42 PM 6:17 PM 7:42 PM 10:11 PM

Arr Rochester 9:30 AM 1:30 PM 2:55 PM 4:25 PM 5:55 PM 7:25 PM 8:55 PM 11:26 PM

Dep 9:34 AM 1:34 PM 2:59 PM 4:29 PM 5:59 PM 7:29 PM 8:59 PM 11:30 PM

Arr Buffalo Depew 10:26 AM 2:26 PM 3:51 PM 5:21 PM 6:51 PM 8:21 PM 9:51 PM 12:32 AM

Dep 10:29 AM 2:29 PM 3:54 PM 5:24 PM 6:54 PM 8:24 PM 9:54 PM 12:40 AM

Arr Buffalo 

Exchange Street

10:41 AM 2:41 PM 4:06 PM 5:36 PM 7:06 PM 8:36 PM 10:06 PM

Dep 10:43 AM 2:43 PM 4:08 PM 5:38 PM 7:08 PM 8:38 PM 10:08 PM

Arr Niagara Falls

(New Station) 11:40 AM 3:45 PM 5:05 PM 6:40 PM 8:05 PM 9:40 PM 11:05 PM

Train 

continues 

to 

Toronto

Train 

continues 

to 

Montreal

Train 

continues 

to 

Rutland

Train 

continues 

to 

Chicago

Train 

continues 

to 

Rutland

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page D-21

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix D – Rail Network Operations Simulation 

Exhibit D-23 - Alternative 90A Scheduled Run Times (with 10% Schedule Margin)

Station Dwell Arrive Depart

Albany Rensselaer 0:00:00 0:00:00 0:00:00

Schenectady 0:02:00 0:21:58 0:24:10

Amsterdam 0:02:00 0:41:05 0:43:17

Utica 0:02:00 1:41:20 1:43:32

Rome 0:02:00 1:57:28 1:59:40

Syracuse 0:04:00 2:37:58 2:42:22

Rochester 0:04:00 3:54:38 3:59:02

Buffalo-Depew 0:03:00 4:48:54 4:52:12

Buffalo-Exchange 0:02:00 5:02:51 5:05:03

Niagara Falls (New 

Station) 0:00:00 5:37:55 5:37:55

Schedule margin is uniformly allocated over the entire trip.

Speed Improvements in 90A are limited to sections and curves 

currently at 79 MPH and assume a 3" cant deficiency.

Exhibit D-24 shows the TrainOps software simulated trip graph (velocity versus distance) for 

Alternative 90A. The red line represents speed restrictions due to geometry and the blue line 

represents the simulated velocity of the train including station stops. Alternative 90A uses shared 

passenger/freight tracks with several speed restrictions (especially in the 75 to 90 MPH range) as 

indicated by the dips in trip graph. 

Page D-22 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation 
Appendix D – Rail Network Operations Simulation Tier 1 Draft EIS

Exhibit D-24 - Alternative 90A Trip Graph

2.1.5.Alternative 90B

Alternative 90B supports the same maximum speed (90 MPH) between Schenectady and Buffalo 

Exchange as 90A with different infrastructure designs. Alternatives 90B and 110 feature dedicated 

third tracks between Hoffmans and Buffalo that are designed to passenger train friendly 

geometry. Under this design, trains in both directions operate on a largely single track railroad 

with passing tracks (“fourth track”) at carefully chosen locations which allow two trains to pass at 

speed, provided that they are both on schedule. Limiting the passing locations (lengths of fourth 

track) to what is needed to run hourly bidirectional service allows for trains in opposite directions 

to “meet” at exactly the same location. This means that they must follow the same schedule and 

have the same elapsed time from “meet” to “meet”. With this design the overall length of track 

miles needed is optimized, reducing the infrastructure cost of these two alternatives. 

Providing express service as a component of Alternatives 90B and 110 was also considered. A train

that is more than a few minutes off this planned schedule, such as an express service, would need to 

wait 15 to 20 minutes at the previous passing track (“meet” location) for a train in the opposite 

direction to clear single track. Although the express service would save 3 to 5 minutes of travel 

time saved with each station stop eliminated, the travel time is increased will waiting at the next 

“meet” location under the design for Alternatives 90B and 110. The design of Alternatives 90B and 

110 could be adjusted by providing additional locations of fourth track, significantly increasing the 

cost of each of these alternatives. It would also be possible to run express service very early in the 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page D-23

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix D – Rail Network Operations Simulation 

morning (eastbound) and late at night (westbound) when there are no trains operating in the 

opposite direction. However, considering the increase in cost needed to provide additional fourth 

track to accommodate express service; and considering the limited timeframe available for express 

service without this added fourth track and that this scenario eliminates the passenger convenience 

of “memory schedules;” Alternatives 90B and 110 were developed without express service.

The operating plan has eight round trips between Albany and Buffalo, the same frequency as 

Alternative 90A. The alternative’s operating plan is shown in Exhibit D-26 and Exhibit D-27. 

Exhibit D-25 shows the service diagram for Alternative 90B.

Exhibit D-25 - Alternative 90B Service Diagram

Exhibit D-28 shows the TrainOps simulation results for a single passenger train operating over the 

Alternative 90B infrastructure. A schedule margin was of 8 percent is considered appropriate due 

to the use of dedicated third and fourth tracks for most of the corridor in this alternative. 

Page D-24 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation 
Appendix D – Rail Network Operations Simulation Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Exhibit D-26 - Alternative 90B – Eastbound Timetable

Stations/Train 

Numbers 230 232 234 236 280 238 282 290 284 240 286 242 48 288 68 64 298

Dep Montreal

Train 

originates 

at Rutland

Train 

originates 

at Chicago

Train 

originates 

at 

Montreal

Train 

originates 

at Toronto

Dep Plattsburgh

Dep Rutland

Dep Saratoga 

Dep Niagara Falls 

(New Station) 3:49 AM 5:49 AM 7:49 AM 9:49 AM 11:49 AM 1:49 PM 3:49 PM

Dep Buffalo 

Exchange Street 4:22 AM 6:22 AM 8:22 AM 10:22 AM 12:22 PM 2:22 PM 4:22 PM

Dep Buffalo Depew 4:39 AM 6:39 AM 8:39 AM 10:39 AM 11:06 AM 12:39 PM 2:39 PM 4:39 PM

Dep Rochester 5:29 AM 7:29 AM 9:29 AM 11:29 AM 11:59 AM 1:29 PM 3:29 PM 5:29 PM

Dep Syracuse 6:34 AM 8:34 AM 10:34 AM 12:34 PM 1:34 PM 2:34 PM 4:34 PM 6:34 PM

Dep Rome 7:07 AM 9:07 AM 11:07 AM 1:07 PM 3:07 PM 5:07 PM 7:07 PM

Dep Utica 7:28 AM 9:28 AM 11:28 AM 1:28 PM 2:37 PM 3:28 PM 5:28 PM 7:28 PM

Dep Amsterdam 8:13 AM 10:13 AM 12:13 PM 2:13 PM ..... 4:13 PM 6:13 PM 8:13 PM

Dep Schenectady 8:30 AM 10:30 AM 11:26 AM 12:30 PM 2:30 PM 3:41 PM 4:30 PM 5:16 PM 6:30 PM 8:30 PM

Arr AlbanyRensselaer

8:56 AM 10:56 AM 11:50 AM 12:56 PM 2:56 PM 4:20 PM 4:56 PM 5:50 PM 6:56 PM 8:56 PM

Dep 5:10 AM 6:10 AM 7:10 AM 8:10 AM 9:10 AM 10:10 AM 11:10 AM 12:10 PM 1:10 PM 2:10 PM 3:10 PM 4:10 PM 4:45 PM 5:10 PM 6:10 PM 7:10 PM 9:10 PM

Dep Hudson 5:34 AM 6:34 AM 7:34 AM 8:34 AM 9:34 AM 10:34 AM 11:34 AM 12:34 PM 1:34 PM 2:34 PM 3:34 PM 4:34 PM ..... 5:34 PM 6:34 PM 7:34 PM 9:34 PM

Dep Rhinecliff 5:55 AM 6:55 AM 7:55 AM 8:55 AM 9:55 AM 10:55 AM 11:55 AM 12:55 PM 1:55 PM 2:55 PM 3:55 PM 4:55 PM ..... 5:55 PM 6:55 PM 7:55 PM 9:55 PM

Dep Poughkeepsie ..... ..... ..... 9:09 AM ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... 3:09 PM ..... ..... ..... 6:09 PM 7:09 PM 8:09 PM 10:09 PM

Dep Croton-Harmon 6:42 AM ..... ..... 9:45 AM 10:43 AM 11:43 AM 12:43 PM 1:43 PM 2:43 PM 3:45 PM 4:43 PM ..... 6:00 PM 6:45 PM 7:45 PM 8:45 PM 10:45 PM

Dep Yonkers ..... ..... ..... ..... 11:02 AM 12:02 PM 1:02 PM 2:02 PM 3:02 PM ..... 5:02 PM ..... ..... ..... 8:04 PM 9:04 PM 11:04 PM

Arr New York 7:20 AM 8:15 AM 9:15 AM 10:25 AM 11:25 AM 12:25 PM 1:25 PM 2:25 PM 3:25 PM 4:25 PM 5:25 PM 6:20 PM 6:55 PM 7:25 PM 8:30 PM 9:30 PM 11:30 PM

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page D-25

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix D – Rail Network Operations Simulation 

Exhibit D-27 - Alternative 90B – Westbound Timetable

Stations/Train 

Numbers 299 63 69 281 231 283 285 291 287 255 289 257 233 49 241 243 245 247

Dep New York 7:15 AM 8:15 AM 9:15 AM 10:15 AM 11:15 AM 1:15 PM 2:15 PM 3:15 PM 3:45 PM 4:15 PM 4:45 PM 5:45 PM 6:45 PM 7:15 PM 8:15 PM 9:15 PM 11:15 PM

Dep Yonkers 7:37 AM 8:37 AM ..... ..... 11:37 AM ..... 2:37 PM ..... ..... 4:37 PM ..... ..... ..... 7:37 PM 8:37 PM 9:37 PM 11:37 PM

Dep Croton-Harmon 7:57 AM 8:57 AM 9:54 AM 10:54 AM 11:57 AM 1:54 PM 2:57 PM 3:54 PM ..... 4:57 PM ..... 6:24 PM 7:25 PM 7:57 PM 8:57 PM 9:57 PM 11:57 PM

Dep Poughkeepsie 8:34 AM 9:34 AM 10:31 AM 11:31 AM ..... 2:31 PM ..... 4:31 PM ..... ..... ..... 7:01 PM ..... ..... 9:34 PM 10:34 PM 12:34 AM

Dep Rhinecliff 8:47 AM 9:47 AM 10:44 AM 11:44 AM 12:44 PM 2:44 PM 3:44 PM 4:44 PM 5:09 PM 5:44 PM 6:09 PM 7:14 PM ..... 8:44 PM 9:47 PM 10:47 PM 12:47 AM

Dep Hudson 9:09 AM 10:09 AM 11:07 AM 12:07 PM 1:07 PM 3:07 PM 4:07 PM 5:07 PM 5:31 PM 6:07 PM 6:31 PM 7:37 PM ..... 9:07 PM 10:09 PM 11:09 PM 1:09 AM

Arr AlbanyRensselaer

9:30 AM 10:30 AM 11:30 AM 12:30 PM 1:30 PM 3:30 PM 4:30 PM 5:30 PM 5:50 PM 6:30 PM 6:50 PM 7:59 PM 9:00 PM 9:30 PM 10:30 PM 11:30 PM 1:30 AM

Dep 5:45 AM 9:45 AM 10:55 AM 11:45 AM 1:45 PM 3:45 PM 4:40 PM 5:45 PM 6:00 PM 6:45 PM 7:00 PM 9:40 PM

Arr Schenectady 6:02 AM 10:02 AM 11:13 AM 12:02 PM 2:02 PM 4:02 PM 4:58 PM 6:02 PM 6:18 PM 7:02 PM 7:18 PM 10:00 PM

Arr Amsterdam 6:19 AM 10:19 AM 12:19 PM 2:19 PM 4:19 PM 6:19 PM 7:19 PM .....

Arr Utica 7:06 AM 11:06 AM 1:06 PM 3:06 PM 5:06 PM 7:06 PM 8:06 PM 11:04 PM

Arr Rome 7:22 AM 11:22 AM 1:22 PM 3:22 PM 5:22 PM 7:22 PM 8:22 PM .....

Arr Syracuse 7:59 AM 11:59 AM 1:59 PM 3:59 PM 5:59 PM 7:59 PM 8:59 PM 11:58 PM

Arr Rochester 9:05 AM 1:05 PM 3:05 PM 5:05 PM 7:05 PM 9:05 PM 10:05 PM 1:12 AM

Arr Buffalo Depew 9:56 AM 1:56 PM 3:56 PM 5:56 PM 7:56 PM 9:56 PM 10:56 PM 2:16 AM

Arr Buffalo 

Exchange Street 10:12 AM 2:12 PM 4:12 PM 6:12 PM 8:12 PM 10:12 PM 11:12 PM

Arr Niagara Falls 

(New Station) 10:51 AM 2:51 PM 4:51 PM 6:51 PM 8:51 PM 10:51 PM 11:51 PM

Dep Saratoga Train 

continues 

to 

Toronto

Train 

continues 

to 

Montreal

Train 

continues 

to 

Rutland

Train 

continues 

to Chicago

Arr Rutland

Dep Plattsburgh

Arr Montreal

Page D-26 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation 
Appendix D – Rail Network Operations Simulation Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Exhibit D-28 - Alternative 90B Scheduled Run Times (with 8% Schedule Margin)

Station Dwell Arrive Depart

Albany Rensselaer 0:00:00 0:00:00 0:00:00

Schenectady 0:02:00 0:21:40 0:23:50

Amsterdam 0:02:00 0:39:25 0:41:35

Utica 0:02:00 1:28:39 1:30:49

Rome 0:02:00 1:43:32 1:45:42

Syracuse 0:04:00 2:17:52 2:22:11

Rochester 0:04:00 3:24:44 3:29:03

Buffalo-Depew 0:03:00 4:16:57 4:20:11

Buffalo-Exchange 0:02:00 4:30:39 4:32:48

Niagara Falls (New 

Station) 0:00:00 5:05:05 5:05:05

Schedule margin is uniformly allocated over the entire trip.

Exhibit D-29 shows the TrainOps software simulated trip graph (velocity versus distance) for 

Alternative 90B. The red plot represents civil speed restrictions while the blue represents the 

simulated velocity of the train. Alternative 90B uses dedicated passenger-only tracks and less 

stringent curve speed criteria than Alternative 90A. Therefore, Alternative 90B has fewer speed 

restrictions (especially in the 75 to 90 MPH range) than Alternative 90A. 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page D-27

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix D – Rail Network Operations Simulation 

Exhibit D-29 - Alternative 90 B Trip Graph

2.1.6.2035 Alternative 110

Alternative 110 is similar to Alternative 90B but increases the maximum speed of the third main 

track to 110 MPH between Schenectady and Buffalo Exchange stations. The fourth main track, 

where included, is limited to 90 MPH in this alternative. The Alternative 110 operating plan has 

eight round trips between Albany and Buffalo, the same frequency as Alternatives 90A and 90B. 

The alternative’s operating plan is shown in Exhibit D-31 and Exhibit D-32. The passenger service 

operates on long sections of single track with carefully-scheduled “meets” between opposing 

direction trains where both the third and fourth tracks are constructed. Therefore, all passenger 

train trips must operate with a “clockface” pattern and have identical run times. This means that 

Alternative 110 has a stopping pattern similar to Alternative 90B and does not have the express 

service that Alternative 90A does. 

As with Alternative 90B, Alternative 110’s train schedules have been developed based on the bestpossible simulated trip times along with 8 percent schedule margin. This accounts for train delays

and temporary speed restrictions. The single train simulation results are shown in Exhibit D-33. 

Exhibit D-30 shows the service diagram for Alternative 110. It is identical to the Alternative 90B 

and Base Alternative service diagrams. 

Page D-28 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation 
Appendix D – Rail Network Operations Simulation Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Exhibit D-30 - Alternative 110 Service Diagram

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page D-29

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix D – Rail Network Operations Simulation 

Exhibit D-31 - Alternative 110 – Eastbound Timetable

Stations/Train 

Numbers 230 232 234 236 280 238 282 290 284 240 286 242 48 288 68 64 298

Dep Montreal

Train 

originates 

at Rutland

Train 

originates 

at Chicago

Train 

originates 

at 

Montreal

Train 

originates 

at Toronto

Dep Plattsburgh

Dep Rutland

Dep Saratoga 

Dep Niagara Falls 

(New Station) 4:05 AM 6:05 AM 8:05 AM 10:05 AM 12:05 PM 2:05 PM 4:05 PM

Dep Buffalo Exchange 

Street 4:36 AM 6:36 AM 8:36 AM 10:36 AM 12:36 PM 2:36 PM 4:36 PM

Dep Buffalo Depew 4:53 AM 6:53 AM 8:53 AM 10:53 AM 11:20 AM 12:53 PM 2:53 PM 4:53 PM

Dep Rochester 5:40 AM 7:40 AM 9:40 AM 11:40 AM 12:10 PM 1:40 PM 3:40 PM 5:40 PM

Dep Syracuse 6:43 AM 8:43 AM 10:43 AM 12:43 PM 1:45 PM 2:43 PM 4:43 PM 6:43 PM

Dep Rome 7:16 AM 9:16 AM 11:16 AM 1:16 PM 3:16 PM 5:16 PM 7:16 PM

Dep Utica 7:33 AM 9:33 AM 11:33 AM 1:33 PM 2:32 PM 3:33 PM 5:33 PM 7:33 PM

Dep Amsterdam 8:15 AM 10:15 AM 12:15 PM 2:15 PM 4:15 PM 6:15 PM 8:15 PM

Arr Schenectady 7:10 AM ..... ..... ..... .....

Dep ..... 8:31 AM 10:31 AM 11:26 AM 12:31 PM 2:31 PM 3:33 PM 4:31 PM 5:16 PM 6:31 PM 8:31 PM

Arr AlbanyRensselaer

7:34 AM 8:56 AM 10:56 AM 11:50 AM 12:56 PM 2:56 PM 4:15 PM 4:56 PM 5:50 PM 6:56 PM 8:56 PM

Dep 5:10 AM 6:10 AM ..... 8:10 AM 9:10 AM 10:10 AM 11:10 AM 12:10 PM 1:10 PM 2:10 PM 3:10 PM 4:10 PM 4:45 PM 5:10 PM 6:10 PM 7:10 PM 9:10 PM

Dep Hudson 5:34 AM 6:34 AM ..... 8:34 AM 9:34 AM 10:34 AM 11:34 AM 12:34 PM 1:34 PM 2:34 PM 3:34 PM 4:34 PM ..... 5:34 PM 6:34 PM 7:34 PM 9:34 PM

Dep Rhinecliff 5:55 AM 6:55 AM 7:55 AM 8:55 AM 9:55 AM 10:55 AM 11:55 AM 12:55 PM 1:55 PM 2:55 PM 3:55 PM 4:55 PM ..... 5:55 PM 6:55 PM 7:55 PM 9:55 PM

Dep Poughkeepsie ..... ..... 9:15 AM 9:09 AM ..... ..... 12:09 PM ..... ..... 3:09 PM ..... ..... ..... 6:09 PM 7:09 PM 8:09 PM 10:09 PM

Dep Croton-Harmon 6:42 AM ..... ..... 9:45 AM 10:43 AM 11:43 AM 12:45 PM 1:43 PM 2:43 PM 3:45 PM 4:43 PM ..... 6:00 PM 6:45 PM 7:45 PM 8:45 PM 10:45 PM

Dep Yonkers ..... ..... ..... ..... 11:02 AM 12:02 PM ..... 2:02 PM 3:02 PM ..... 5:02 PM ..... ..... ..... 8:04 PM 9:04 PM 11:04 PM

Arr New York 7:20 AM 8:15 AM 9:15 AM 10:25 AM 11:25 AM 12:25 PM 1:25 PM 2:25 PM 3:25 PM 4:25 PM 5:25 PM 6:20 PM 6:55 PM 7:25 PM 8:30 PM 9:30 PM 11:30 PM

Page D-30 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation 
Appendix D – Rail Network Operations Simulation Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Exhibit D-32 - Alternative 110 – Westbound Timetable

Stations/Train 

Numbers 299 63 69 281 231 283 285 291 287 233 289 235 237 49 239 241 243 245

Dep New York 7:15 AM 8:15 AM 9:15 AM 10:15 AM 11:15 AM 1:15 PM 2:15 PM 3:15 PM 3:45 PM 4:15 PM 4:45 PM 5:45 PM 6:45 PM 7:15 PM 8:15 PM 9:15 PM 11:15 PM

Dep Yonkers 7:37 AM 8:37 AM ..... ..... 11:37 AM ..... 2:37 PM ..... ..... 4:37 PM ..... ..... ..... 7:37 PM 8:37 PM 9:37 PM 11:37 PM

Dep Croton-Harmon 7:57 AM 8:57 AM 9:54 AM 10:54 AM 11:57 AM 1:54 PM 2:57 PM 3:54 PM ..... 4:57 PM ..... 6:24 PM 7:25 PM 7:57 PM 8:57 PM 9:57 PM 11:57 PM

Dep Poughkeepsie 8:34 AM 9:34 AM 10:31 AM 11:31 AM ..... 2:31 PM ..... 4:31 PM ..... ..... ..... 7:01 PM ..... ..... 9:34 PM 10:34 PM 12:34 AM

Dep Rhinecliff 8:47 AM 9:47 AM 10:44 AM 11:44 AM 12:44 PM 2:44 PM 3:44 PM 4:44 PM 5:09 PM 5:44 PM 6:09 PM 7:14 PM ..... 8:44 PM 9:47 PM 10:47 PM 12:47 AM

Dep Hudson 9:09 AM 10:09 AM 11:07 AM 12:07 PM 1:07 PM 3:07 PM 4:07 PM 5:07 PM 5:31 PM 6:07 PM 6:31 PM 7:37 PM ..... 9:07 PM 10:09 PM 11:09 PM 1:09 AM

Arr AlbanyRensselaer

9:30 AM 10:30 AM 11:30 AM 12:30 PM 1:30 PM 3:30 PM 4:30 PM 5:30 PM 5:50 PM 6:30 PM 6:50 PM 7:59 PM 9:00 PM 9:30 PM 10:30 PM 11:30 PM 1:30 AM

Dep 5:45 AM 9:45 AM 10:55 AM 11:45 AM 1:45 PM 3:45 PM 4:40 PM 5:45 PM 6:45 PM 9:40 PM

Arr Schenectady 6:02 AM 10:02 AM 11:13 AM 12:02 PM 2:02 PM 4:02 PM 4:58 PM 6:02 PM 7:02 PM 10:00 PM

Arr Amsterdam 6:18 AM 10:18 AM 12:18 PM 2:18 PM 4:18 PM 6:18 PM 7:18 PM .....

Arr Utica 7:02 AM 11:02 AM 1:02 PM 3:02 PM 5:02 PM 7:02 PM 8:02 PM 11:03 PM

Arr Rome 7:17 AM 11:17 AM 1:17 PM 3:17 PM 5:17 PM 7:17 PM 8:17 PM .....

Arr Syracuse 7:53 AM 11:53 AM 1:53 PM 3:53 PM 5:53 PM 7:53 PM 8:53 PM 11:55 PM

Arr Rochester 8:55 AM 12:55 PM 2:55 PM 4:55 PM 6:55 PM 8:55 PM 9:55 PM 1:05 AM

Arr Buffalo Depew 9:42 AM 1:42 PM 3:42 PM 5:42 PM 7:42 PM 9:42 PM 10:42 PM 2:05 AM

Arr Buffalo Exchange 

Street 10:00 AM 2:00 PM 4:00 PM 6:00 PM 8:00 PM 10:00 PM 11:00 PM

Arr Niagara Falls 

(New Station) 10:37 AM 2:37 PM 4:37 PM 6:37 PM 8:37 PM 10:37 PM 11:37 PM

Dep Saratoga Train 

continues 

to 

Toronto

Train 

continues 

to 

Montreal

Train 

continues 

to 

Rutland

Train 

continues 

to Chicago

Arr Rutland

Dep Plattsburgh

Arr Montreal

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page D-31

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix D – Rail Network Operations Simulation 

Exhibit D-33 - Alternative 110 Scheduled Run Times (with 8% Schedule Margin)

Station Dwell Arrive Depart

Albany Rensselaer 0:00:00 0:00:00 0:00:00

Schenectady 0:02:00 0:21:40 0:23:50

Amsterdam 0:02:00 0:38:37 0:40:46

Utica 0:02:00 1:23:32 1:25:42

Rome 0:02:00 1:37:51 1:40:00

Syracuse 0:04:00 2:09:33 2:13:52

Rochester 0:04:00 3:12:40 3:17:00

Buffalo-Depew 0:03:00 3:59:45 4:02:59

Buffalo-Exchange 0:02:00 4:13:26 4:15:36

Niagara Falls (New 

Station) 0:00:00 4:47:52 4:47:52

Schedule margin is uniformly allocated over the entire trip.

Exhibit D-34 shows the TrainOps software simulated trip graph (velocity versus distance) for 

Alternative 110. As with Alternative 90B, Alternative 110 uses dedicated passenger-only tracks and 

less stringent curve speed criteria than Alternative 90A. 

Page D-32 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation 
Appendix D – Rail Network Operations Simulation Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Exhibit D-34 - Alternative 110 Trip Graph

2.1.7.2035 Alternative 125

This alternative provides a dedicated high speed rail corridor on a new alignment from the current 

Empire Corridor between Albany and a new Buffalo Downtown Station. This segment is assumed 

to be electrified and completely grade-separated. Using “dual mode” (electric and diesel) 

locomotives, trains are assumed to operate in diesel mode on the Niagara Branch (Buffalo 

Downtown to Niagara Falls) and on the Hudson Line from Albany south. The maximum speed on 

the dedicated corridor between Albany and Buffalo is assumed to be 125 MPH. Given the capitalintensive nature of an electrified rail corridor and the need to financially support this major 

investment, Alternative 125 has more frequent service than the other alternatives, offering with 

hourly service operated between Albany-Rensselaer and Buffalo Downtown, as shown in Exhibit D36 through Exhibit D-39. This level of service is consistent with the Alternative’s ridership 

forecasts and available operating capacity on a dedicated, passenger-only, two-track rail corridor. 

Exhibit D-35 shows the Alternative 125 service diagram, including the new high speed service 

between Albany and Buffalo Downtown. North of Buffalo, a shuttle service to Niagara Falls is 

assumed, though this could also represent dual mode high speed trains (in diesel mode) operating 

in through service to Niagara Falls. 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page D-33

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix D – Rail Network Operations Simulation 

Exhibit D-35 - Alternative 125 Service Diagram

Page D-34 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation 
Appendix D – Rail Network Operations Simulation Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Exhibit D-36 - Alternative 125 – Eastbound Timetable (AM)

Stations/Train 

Numbers 230 232 234 HST-02 HST-04 NFL-06 HST-06 280 HST-08 290 HST-10 HST-12 284 HST-14 NFL-16

Dep Niagara Falls

(New Station) 6:20 AM 4:20 AM

Train 

originate

s in 

Rutland

7:20 AM 11:20 AM

Arr Buffalo 

Exchange

(New Station)

7:00 AM 5:00 AM 8:00 AM 12:00 PM

Dep 5:15 AM 6:15 AM 7:15 AM 5:05 AM 8:15 AM 9:15 AM 10:15 AM 8:05 AM 11:15 AM

Arr Rochester (HST) 5:54 AM 6:54 AM 7:54 AM 8:54 AM 9:54 AM 10:54 AM 11:54 AM

Dep 5:57 AM 6:57 AM 7:57 AM 8:57 AM 9:57 AM 10:57 AM 11:57 AM

Arr Rochester 

(Central Ave)

6:02 AM 9:02 AM

Dep 6:06 AM 9:06 AM

Arr Syracuse (HST) 6:39 AM 7:39 AM 8:39 AM 9:39 AM 10:39 AM 11:39 AM 12:39 PM

Dep 6:43 AM 7:43 AM 8:43 AM 9:43 AM 10:43 AM 11:43 AM 12:43 PM

Arr Syracuse (RTC) 7:24 AM 10:24 AM

Dep 7:29 AM 10:29 AM

Arr Rome 8:07 AM 11:07 AM

Dep 8:08 AM 11:08 AM

Arr Utica

8:22 AM 11:22 AM

Dep 8:25 AM 11:25 AM

Arr Amsterdam 9:23 AM 12:23 PM

Dep 9:25 AM 12:25 PM

Arr Schenectady 9:43 AM 12:43 PM

Dep 9:46 AM 10:55 AM 12:46 PM

Arr AlbanyRensselaer

8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 10:25 AM 11:00 AM 11:25 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 1:25 PM 2:00 PM

Dep 5:40 AM 6:40 AM 7:10 AM 8:10 AM 9:10 AM 10:10 AM 10:40 AM 11:10 AM 11:40 AM 12:10 PM 1:10 PM 1:40 PM 2:10 PM

Dep Hudson 6:04 AM 7:04 AM 7:34 AM 8:34 AM 9:34 AM 10:34 AM 11:04 AM 11:34 AM 12:04 PM 12:34 PM 1:34 PM 2:04 PM 2:34 PM

Dep Rhinecliff 6:25 AM 7:25 AM 7:55 AM 8:55 AM 9:55 AM 10:55 AM 11:25 AM 11:55 AM 12:25 PM 12:55 PM 1:55 PM 2:25 PM 2:55 PM

Dep Poughkeepsie 6:39 AM 9:09 AM 11:09 AM 11:39 AM 12:39 PM 1:09 PM 2:39 PM 3:09 PM

Dep Croton 7:15 AM 8:43 AM 9:45 AM 10:43 AM 11:45 AM 12:15 PM 12:43 PM 1:15 PM 1:45 PM 2:43 PM 3:15 PM 3:45 PM

Dep Yonkers 9:02 AM 11:02 AM 12:34 PM 1:02 PM 1:34 PM 3:02 PM 3:34 PM

Arr New York 7:55 AM 8:45 AM 9:25 AM 10:25 AM 11:25 AM 12:25 PM 1:00 PM 1:25 PM 2:00 PM 2:25 PM 3:25 PM 4:00 PM 4:25 PM

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page D-35

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix D – Rail Network Operations Simulation 

Exhibit D-37 - Alternative 125 – Eastbound Timetable (PM)

Stations/Train 

Numbers HST-16 HST-18 48 HST-20 68 HST-22 64 HST-24 HST-26 NFL-28 HST-28 HST-30

Dep Niagara Falls

(New Station) Train 

originates 

in Chicago

Train 

originates 

in 

Montreal

12:20 PM 5:20 PM

Arr Buffalo 

Exchange

(New Station)

1:00 PM 6:00 PM

Dep 12:15 PM 1:15 PM 2:15 PM 3:15 PM 1:05 PM 4:15 PM 5:15 PM 6:15 PM 7:15 PM

Arr Rochester 

(HST)

12:54 PM 1:54 PM 2:54 PM 3:54 PM 4:54 PM 5:54 PM 6:54 PM 7:54 PM

Dep 12:57 PM 1:57 PM 2:57 PM 3:57 PM 4:57 PM 5:57 PM 6:57 PM 7:57 PM

Arr Rochester 

(Central Ave)

11:09 AM 2:02 PM

Dep 11:17 AM 2:06 PM

Arr Syracuse (HST) 1:39 PM 2:39 PM 3:39 PM 4:39 PM 5:39 PM 6:39 PM 7:39 PM 8:39 PM

Dep 1:43 PM 2:43 PM 3:43 PM 4:43 PM 5:43 PM 6:43 PM 7:43 PM 8:43 PM

Arr Syracuse (RTC) 12:37 PM 3:24 PM

Dep 12:47 PM 3:29 PM

Arr Rome

4:07 PM

Dep 4:08 PM

Arr Utica

1:40 PM 4:22 PM

Dep 1:47 PM 4:25 PM

Arr Amsterdam 5:23 PM

Dep 5:25 PM

Arr Schenectady 3:03 PM 5:43 PM

Dep 3:09 PM 4:45 PM 5:46 PM

Arr AlbanyRensselaer

3:00 PM 4:00 PM 3:50 PM 5:00 PM 5:20 PM 6:00 PM 6:25 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PM

Dep 3:10 PM 4:10 PM 4:20 PM 5:10 PM 5:40 PM 6:10 PM 6:40 PM 7:10 PM 8:10 PM 9:10 PM 10:10 PM

Dep Hudson 3:34 PM 4:34 PM 5:34 PM 6:04 PM 6:34 PM 7:04 PM 7:34 PM 8:34 PM 9:34 PM 10:34 PM

Dep Rhinecliff 3:55 PM 4:55 PM 5:55 PM 6:25 PM 6:55 PM 7:25 PM 7:55 PM 8:55 PM 9:55 PM 10:55 PM

Dep Poughkeepsie 5:09 PM 5:21 PM 6:39 PM 7:09 PM 7:39 PM 9:09 PM 10:09 PM 11:09 PM

Dep Croton 4:43 PM 5:45 PM 6:06 PM 6:43 PM 7:15 PM 7:45 PM 8:15 PM 8:43 PM 9:45 PM 10:45 PM 11:45 PM

Dep Yonkers 5:02 PM 7:02 PM 7:34 PM 8:34 PM 9:02 PM 10:04 PM 11:04 PM 12:04 AM

Arr New York 5:25 PM 6:25 PM 7:00 PM 7:25 PM 8:00 PM 8:25 PM 9:00 PM 9:25 PM 10:30 PM 11:30 PM 12:30 AM

Page D-36 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation 
Appendix D – Rail Network Operations Simulation Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Exhibit D-38 - Alternative 125 – Westbound Timetable (AM)

Stations/Train 

Numbers HST-01 NFL-01 HST-03 HST-05 63 HST-07 NFL-07 69 HST-09 HST-11 281 HST-13

Dep New York 4:15 AM 6:15 AM 7:15 AM 7:45 AM 8:15 AM 8:45 AM 9:15 AM 10:15 AM 10:45 AM 11:15 AM

Dep Yonkers 4:37 AM 6:37 AM 8:07 AM 8:37 AM 9:07 AM 10:37 AM 11:07 AM

Dep Croton 4:57 AM 6:57 AM 7:54 AM 8:27 AM 8:57 AM 9:27 AM 9:54 AM 10:57 AM 11:27 AM 11:54 AM

Dep Poughkeepsie 5:34 AM 8:31 AM 9:04 AM 10:04 AM 10:31 AM 12:04 PM 12:31 PM

Dep Rhinecliff 5:47 AM 7:44 AM 8:44 AM 9:17 AM 9:44 AM 10:17 AM 10:44 AM 11:44 AM 12:17 PM 12:44 PM

Dep Hudson 6:09 AM 8:07 AM 9:07 AM 9:39 AM 10:07 AM 10:39 AM 11:07 AM 12:07 PM 12:39 PM 1:07 PM

Arr AlbanyRensselaer

6:30 AM 8:30 AM 9:30 AM 10:00 AM 10:30 AM 11:00 AM 11:30 AM 12:30 PM 1:00 PM 1:30 PM

Dep 6:40 AM 8:40 AM 9:40 AM 10:20 AM 10:40 AM 11:20 AM 11:40 AM 12:40 PM 1:15 PM 1:40 PM

Arr

Schenectady 10:39 AM 11:39 AM 1:34 PM

Dep 10:41 AM 1:36 PM

Arr

Amsterdam 10:56 AM 1:51 PM

Dep 10:58 AM 1:53 PM

Arr

Utica 11:55 AM 2:50 PM

Dep 11:58 AM 2:53 PM

Arr

Rome 12:13 PM 3:08 PM

Dep 12:14 PM 3:09 PM

Arr

Syracuse (HST) 7:54 AM 9:54 AM 10:54 AM 11:54 AM 12:54 PM 1:54 PM 2:54 PM

Dep 7:58 AM 9:58 AM 10:58 AM 11:58 AM 12:58 PM 1:58 PM 2:58 PM

Arr

Syracuse (RTC) 1:00 PM 3:55 PM

Dep 1:04 PM 3:59 PM

Arr Rochester 

(HST)

8:40 AM 10:40 AM 11:40 AM

Train 

continues 

to 

Toronto

12:40 PM

Train 

continues 

to 

Montreal

1:40 PM 2:40 PM 3:40 PM

Dep 8:43 AM 10:43 AM 11:43 AM 12:43 PM 1:43 PM 2:43 PM 3:43 PM

Arr Rochester 

(Central Ave)

2:16 PM 5:11 PM

Dep 2:20 PM 5:15 PM

Arr Buffalo 

Exchange

(New Station)

9:25 AM 11:25 AM 12:25 PM 3:25 PM 1:25 PM 2:25 PM 3:25 PM 6:20 PM 4:25 PM

Dep 9:40 AM 3:30 PM 1:40 PM 6:30 PM

Arr Niagara Falls

(New Station) 10:17 AM 4:25 PM 2:17 PM 7:25 PM

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page D-37

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix D – Rail Network Operations Simulation 

Exhibit D-39 - Alternative 125 – Westbound Timetable (PM)

HST-15 HST-17 283 HST-19 NFL-19 291 HST-21 49 HST-23 HST-25 HST-27 HST-29

Dep New York 12:15 PM 1:15 PM 1:45 PM 2:15 PM 2:45 PM 3:15 PM 3:45 PM 4:15 PM 5:15 PM 6:15 PM 7:15 PM

Dep Yonkers 12:37 PM 2:07 PM 2:37 PM 3:07 PM 4:37 PM 6:37 PM

Dep Croton 12:57 PM 1:54 PM 2:27 PM 2:57 PM 3:27 PM 3:54 PM 4:29 PM 4:57 PM 5:54 PM 6:57 PM 7:54 PM

Dep Poughkeepsie 2:31 PM 3:04 PM 4:04 PM 4:31 PM 5:15 PM 6:31 PM 8:31 PM

Dep Rhinecliff 1:44 PM 2:44 PM 3:17 PM 3:44 PM 4:17 PM 4:44 PM 5:44 PM 6:44 PM 7:44 PM 8:44 PM

Dep Hudson 2:07 PM 3:07 PM 3:39 PM 4:07 PM 4:39 PM 5:07 PM 6:07 PM 7:07 PM 8:07 PM 9:07 PM

Arr AlbanyRensselaer

2:30 PM 3:30 PM 4:00 PM 4:30 PM 5:00 PM 5:30 PM 6:25 PM 6:30 PM 7:30 PM 8:30 PM 9:30 PM

Dep 2:40 PM 3:40 PM 4:15 PM 4:40 PM 5:20 PM 5:40 PM 7:00 PM 6:40 PM 7:40 PM 8:40 PM 9:40 PM

Arr Schenectady 4:34 PM 5:39 PM 7:21 PM

Dep 4:36 PM 7:27 PM

Arr Amsterdam 4:51 PM

Dep 4:53 PM

Arr Utica 5:50 PM 8:41 PM

Dep 5:53 PM 8:47 PM

Arr

Rome 6:08 PM

Dep 6:09 PM

Arr Syracuse (HST) 3:54 PM 4:54 PM 5:54 PM 6:54 PM 7:54 PM 8:54 PM 9:54 PM 10:54 PM

Dep 3:58 PM 4:58 PM 5:58 PM 6:58 PM 7:58 PM 8:58 PM 9:58 PM 10:58 PM

Arr Syracuse (RTC) 6:55 PM 9:49 PM

Dep 6:59 PM 9:58 PM

Arr

Rochester 

(HST)

4:40 PM 5:40 PM 6:40 PM Train 

continues 

to Rutland

7:40 PM Train 

continues 

to Chicago

8:40 PM 9:40 PM 10:40 PM 11:40 PM

Dep 4:43 PM 5:43 PM 6:43 PM 7:43 PM 8:43 PM 9:43 PM 10:43 PM 11:43 PM

Arr Rochester 

(Central Ave)

8:11 PM 11:10 PM

Dep 8:15 PM 11:19 PM

Arr Buffalo 

Exchange

(New Station)

5:25 PM 6:25 PM 9:20 PM 7:25 PM 8:25 PM 12:24 AM 9:25 PM 10:25 PM 11:25 PM 12:25 AM

Dep 9:30 PM 7:40 PM 12:35 AM

Arr Niagara Falls

(New Station) 10:25 PM 8:17 PM

Page D-38 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation 
Appendix D – Rail Network Operations Simulation Tier 1 Draft EIS 

2.1.8. Operating Plan Comparison

Exhibit D-40 shows average scheduled time (not simulated time) travel speeds between New York 

and Niagara Falls. The travel times and speeds are based on the average of all westbound services, 

For Alternative 125, the New York to Niagara Falls travel time and average speeds are based on a 

transfer to a Niagara Branch shuttle service in Buffalo. The alternatives all provide average speed 

improvements when compared with Current Conditions and the Base Alternative. 

The alternatives differ in terms of the range of train-by-train trip time improvements on the Empire 

Corridor. For the Base, 90B, 110 and 125 (both express and regional), most train trips have the 

same scheduled travel time over the course of the day. Alternative 90A differs in that it provides 

some limited stops service with faster trip times (3 round trips New York – Niagara Falls with one 

additional round trip Albany – Niagara Falls). Exhibit D-40 presents average travel times between 

New York City and Niagara Falls. The scheduled trip times of Alternative 90A range from 7:50 to 

8:30, with the overall average of 8:08. 

When the data is presented solely for Albany to Buffalo (Exhibit D-41), the range of scheduled train 

speeds becomes more pronounced because the alternatives’ capital improvements are focused in 

this area. The current scheduled speed across Empire Corridor West is 57 MPH. Each of the 

alternatives, including the Base Alternative, provides higher average speeds. The 125 Alternative 

provides the highest average speed – 108 MPH for Express service. 

Exhibit D-40 - Average Scheduled Time Travel Speeds -New York to Niagara Falls

Trip 

Alternative

Average 

Travel Time 

(HH:MM)

Distance 

(Miles)

Average 

Speed 

(MPH)

Current Conditions 9:06 463 51

Base Alternative 9:06 465 51

Alternative 90A 8:08 465 57

Alternative 90B 7:36 465 61

Alternative 110 7:22 465 63

Alternative 125 (Express) 6:02 465 77

Alternative 125 (Regional) 8:40 465 54

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page D-39

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix D – Rail Network Operations Simulation 

Exhibit D-41 - Average Scheduled Time Travel Speeds - Albany to Buffalo Exchange

Trip 

Alternative

Average 

Travel Time 

(HH:MM)

Distance 

(Miles)

Average

Speed 

(MPH)

Current Conditions 5:14 298 57

Base Alternative 5:09 298 58

Alternative 90A 4:47 298 62

Alternative 90B 4:27 298 67

Alternative 110 4:15 298 70

Alternative 125 (Express) 2:45 298 108

Alternative 125 (Regional) 5:09 298 58

2.2. Future Freight Train Service

CSXT provided a detailed future freight operating plan for the corridor as part of the High Speed 

Rail Empire Corridor Program. The future freight operating plan includes CSXT business segmentby-segment assessments of future freight traffic and how it would be moved (by lengthening 

existing trains and/or adding trains).

Exhibit D-42 shows the current (2008) and Base Alternative train volumes on the Empire Corridor, 

broken down by local freight, through freight and passenger services. For the Base Alternative, no 

passenger service growth is included. CSXT freight projections include no growth in local freight 

and a growth of about 100 weekly through freight trains. This represents compounded annual 

growth of 0.67 percent for CSXT through freight trains and 0.51 for the corridor overall. The CSXT 

2035 operating plan was held constant for all future alternatives – the Base and Alternatives 90A, 

90B, 110 and 125. 

Page D-40 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program 

New York State Department of Transportation 
Appendix D – Rail Network Operations Simulation Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Exhibit D-42 - Weekly Empire Corridor CSXT Freight Train Movements – 2008 and 2035

3. Simulation Results

3.1. Current (2008) Operations

The RTC network simulation model was the subject of extensive calibration efforts to ensure that 

its 2008 results matched actual operations during that year. The calibration effort focused 

primarily on passenger train on-time performance and involved “tuning” the priorities of freight 

and passenger trains in the model’s dispatching logic. 

Exhibit D-43 shows the resultant passenger train on-time performance for Empire Corridor West 

operations in 2008. The 47.6 percent on-time performance (based on the standard 10 minute 

lateness threshold) includes both Empire Corridor and Adirondack/Ethan Allen (Saratoga Springs – 

Albany-Rensselaer only) services. The figure shows the typical distribution of train lateness – some 

trains modestly early, most on-time and some very late (more than 2 hours late). The simulation 

result of 47.6 percent on-time arrivals is close to the actual Empire Corridor West 2008 on-time 

performance computed by the HNTB Team (57 percent). The actual data is averaged over the 

entire year whereas the simulation reflects seasonal high freight volumes (in essence, the busiest 

freight movement week of the year). Therefore, the RTC calibration is deemed to be reasonable, 

despite the lower OTP result. 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page D-41

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix D – Rail Network Operations Simulation 

Exhibit D-43 - 2008 Existing Operations – Simulated Train OTP

At the initiation of the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor program in 2008, Amtrak trains were 

operating at approximately 84 percent OTP between New York and Albany and 57 percent on-time 

between Albany and Niagara Falls. The average reported 2008 reliability for the entire Empire 

Corridor for 2008 was 77 percent.

3.1.1.Passenger Operations

Exhibit D-44 displays an RTC “string” (time-distance) chart for a 12-hour weekday morning period 

while Exhibit D-45 displays the same information of the following 12 hours (the evening period). 

The charts represent 24 hours of the 7+ day simulation. The “strings” (train traces) are color-coded 

according to which track is being used by each train – red for Track 1, blue for Track 2 and green for 

other tracks. Niagara Falls is at the top of the chart and Albany-Rensselaer is at the bottom. The 

slopes of the passenger trains (“P” prefixes) are steeper than those of the freight trains, indicating 

higher average speeds. The overall corridor shows that “right hand running” is a favored 

dispatching strategy in the RTC model with westbound trains on Track 1 and eastbound trains on 

Track 2. However, there are many exceptions and the corridor’s bidirectional signaling readily 

supports this type of complex dispatching. 

The current passenger trains must serve Amsterdam on the north side (Track 1), Syracuse on the 

south side (Track 7), Rochester on the south side (Track 2) and Buffalo Depew on the south side 

(Track 2) in both directions. These constraints lead to a number of unusual train routings that 

deviate from the “right hand running” rule. 

Exhibit D-46 shows the simulated on-time performance for 2008 passenger train operations. 

Overall, the 2008 RTC run shows a 47.6 percent on-time performance based on a 10 minute 

lateness threshold.

Page D-42 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program 

New York State Department of Transportation 
Appendix D – Rail Network Operations Simulation Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Exhibit D-44 - 2008 Existing Operations – AM String Chart

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page D-43

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix D – Rail Network Operations Simulation 

Exhibit D-45 - 2008 Existing Operations – PM String Chart

Page D-44 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation 
Appendix D – Rail Network Operations Simulation Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Exhibit D-46 - Existing (2008) Simulated On-Time Performance – Passenger Trains

Threshold (min. late) 1 5 10 15

Adirondack / EAE 60.7% 67.9% 75.0% 89.3%

Lake Shore Limited 0.0% 7.1% 21.4% 21.4%

Empire 26.2% 28.6% 38.1% 47.6%

LSL + Empire 19.6% 23.2% 33.9% 41.1%

Amtrak Total 33.3% 38.1% 47.6% 57.1%

3.1.2.Freight Operations

Exhibit D-47 shows simulated freight performance for the 2008 calibration model. For CSXT, 

schedule adherence is less of a concern (with some exceptions for high priority intermodal trains) 

than overall corridor flow and efficiency. Overall, the 2008 benchmark features 36.83 train minutes 

of delay (congestion ahead) per 100 freight train miles operated. Of the 721 freight trains in the 

simulation, an average speed of 27.4 MPH (including en route switching) was computed by the 

simulation software.

Exhibit D-47 - Existing (2008) Simulated Performance – Freight Trains

Train Group

Run-Time 

Train Count

Average 

Speed with 

Dwell

True Delay 

DD:HH:MM

Ideal Run 

Time 

DD:HH:MM Train Miles

Delay per 

100 Train 

Miles

Expedited* 247 32.2 15:12:16 63:16:23 61166.3 36.52

Freight** 474 21.8 13:06:10 85:00:32 51301.7 37.21

Total 721 27.4 28:18:26 149:16:55 112468.0 36.83

*Includes Auto, Intermodal, Guaranteed Intermodal

**Includes Bulk, Empty Unit Coal, Grain, Local, Merchandise, Road Switcher , Unit, Yard, Coal

Exhibit D-48 shows another important metric for CSXT – simulated trip time statistics (Selkirk Yard 

to Syracuse to Buffalo) and the standard deviation (statistical measure of variability) of this data. 

CSXT desires to see the shortest reasonable trip time and a small standard deviation in the 

variability of simulated trip time, representing consistency of service. Overall, measuring CSXT 

freight trip times between Selkirk Yard and Buffalo, the existing case RTC model shows an average 

trip time of 9:07, with a standard deviation of 2:40. The variability in trip time reflects a wide 

variety of freight train types (with different performance characteristics), variation in stopping 

patterns and congestion along the corridor. 

Exhibit D-48 - Existing (2008) - Simulated Freight Trip Time Statistics and Reliability (Standard 

Deviation)

Buffalo -

Syracuse

Syracuse -

Selkirk Yard

Syracuse -

Buffalo

Selkirk Yard -

Syracuse

Average 4:27:26 4:36:23 4:34:25 4:26:24

Min 3:06:16 2:58:46 2:48:31 2:49:52

Max 15:25:10 10:33:01 17:07:59 11:48:53

Std Dev 1:41:11 1:23:59 1:58:25 1:30:48

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page D-45

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix D – Rail Network Operations Simulation 

3.2. 2035 Base Alternative

3.2.1.Passenger Operations

The operating philosophy for the Base Alternative (No Action) is similar to that for current 

conditions. The platform edge constraints at Amsterdam, Syracuse, Rochester and Buffalo-Depew 

remain. Exhibit D-49 shows the 2035 Base Alternative simulation results for a typical AM period of 

12 hours while Exhibit D-50 shows the comparable data for a typical PM period. The scheduled 

passenger train trip times reflect some tightening to take advantage of Base Alternative 

improvements at Albany-Rensselaer, between Albany-Rensselaer and Schenectady and at Syracuse. 

They also reflect some lengthening to account for the fact that the new Niagara Falls station is some 

two miles north of the present location with a track speed of just 20 MPH for these two additional 

miles. 

The Base Alternative operations show use of the Rochester Area Third Track between CP 382 and 

CP 393. There is a pair of three-way freight train meets just after midnight in Exhibit D-49. At about 

5:30 AM, Amtrak Train 280 benefits from a three-way meet at the same location, passing by both 

eastbound and westbound CSXT freight trains. 

The Base Alternative capital improvements, coupled with no additional passenger train traffic to 

compound delays, produce a passenger train on-time performance of about 83 percent (based on 

the standard Amtrak lateness threshold of 10 minutes). Exhibit D-51 shows the breakdown, 

including on-time performance for a variety of lateness thresholds. The on-time performance 

improvement is nearly 35 percentage points versus the 2008 (current) operations RTC run.

Page D-46 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation 
Appendix D – Rail Network Operations Simulation Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Exhibit D-49 - 2035 Base Alternative– AM String Chart

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page D-47

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix D – Rail Network Operations Simulation 

Exhibit D-50 - 2035 Base Alternative– PM String Chart

Page D-48 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation 
Appendix D – Rail Network Operations Simulation Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Exhibit D-51 - Base Alternative Simulated On-Time Performance – Passenger Trains

Threshold (min. late) 1 5 10 15

Adirondack / EAE 89.7% 93.1% 100.0% 100.0%

Lake Shore Limited 71.4% 71.4% 71.4% 78.6%

Empire 57.8% 64.4% 75.6% 82.2%

LSL + Empire 61.0% 66.1% 74.6% 81.4%

Amtrak Total 70.5% 75.0% 83.0% 87.5%

3.2.2.Freight Operations

Exhibit D-52 shows the simulated results for 2035 CSXT operations under the Base Alternative. 

Overall, the Base Alternative shows similar delay per 100 miles operated statistic (36.31 train 

delay-minutes per 100 miles operated versus the 2008 benchmark of 36.83 train delay-minutes). 

Freight volume increases by some 119 trains during the seven day simulation period. Average 

speed improves with the Base Alternative, increasing from the 2008 average speed of 27.4 MPH to 

30.3 MPH in 2035. This reflects the fact that the majority of future CSXT growth is projected to be 

high priority intermodal trains; the performance of this group raises the average speed for the 

freight train population as a whole. 

Exhibit D-52 - 2035 Base Alternative Simulated Performance – Freight Trains

Train Group

Run-Time 

Train Count

Average 

Speed with 

Dwell

True Delay 

DD:HH:MM

Ideal Run 

Time 

DD:HH:MM Train Miles

Delay per 

100 Train 

Miles

Expedited* 335 34.8 19:15:39 86:09:00 88534.3 31.96

Freight** 505 23.5 17:11:53 86:22:11 58780.8 42.86

Total 840 30.3 37:03:32 173:07:11 147315.1 36.31

*Includes Auto, Intermodal, Guaranteed Intermodal 

**Includes Bulk, Empty Unit Coal, Grain, Local, Merchandise, Road Switcher , Unit, Yard, Coal

Exhibit D-53 shows freight trip times on the corridor in the 2035 Base Alternative. Overall, 

measuring CSXT freight trip times between Selkirk Yard and Buffalo, the Base Alternative RTC 

model shows an average trip time of 8:14 (versus 9:07 in the 2008 model), with a standard 

deviation of 1:37 (versus 2:40 in the 2008 model). The reduced variability (greater reliability) in 

trip time reflects the more predictable passenger train performance (which, in turn, results from 

the Albany, Albany-Schenectady, Syracuse and Rochester area improvements) as well as the future 

focus on better-performing intermodal trains. 

Exhibit D-53 - 2035 Base Alternative - Simulated Freight Trip Time Statistics and Reliability 

(Standard Deviation)

Buffalo -

Syracuse

Syracuse -

Selkirk Yard

Syracuse -

Buffalo

Selkirk Yard -

Syracuse

Average 4:04:16 4:06:31 4:11:14 4:14:33

Min 2:52:59 2:51:50 2:52:14 2:51:58

Max 16:30:37 9:07:45 8:57:31 9:15:37

Std Dev 1:22:23 1:15:07 0:57:51 1:20:34

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page D-49

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix D – Rail Network Operations Simulation 

3.3. 2035 Alternative 90A

Alternative 90A features passenger trains operating on shared passenger/freight tracks with a 

maximum operating speed of 90 MPH. In addition to track structure upgrades, it includes targeted 

capital projects along the corridor to reduce/eliminate conflicts between passenger and freight 

trains. 

3.3.1.Passenger Operations

Exhibit D-54 shows the RTC time-distance “string” chart for a representative morning period for 

Alternative 90A while Exhibit D-55 shows the same information for the following 12 hours (PM 

period). The steeper slopes of the passenger trains (“P” train symbol prefix) are evident, including 

the four new round trips on the corridor. Overall, the corridor shows fluid operation with extensive 

use of the existing bidirectional signaling capability move higher priority trains around those with 

lower priority. 

Page D-50 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation 
Appendix D – Rail Network Operations Simulation Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Exhibit D-54 - 2035 Alternative 90A – AM String Chart

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page D-51

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix D – Rail Network Operations Simulation 

Exhibit D-55 - 2035 Alternative 90A – PM String Chart

Page D-52 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program 

New York State Department of Transportation 
Appendix D – Rail Network Operations Simulation Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Exhibit D-56 shows simulated passenger train on-time performance for Alternative 90A. The 

results exceed the program’s goal of 90 percent OTP with simulated OTP of 92.4 percent, based on 

the standard Amtrak lateness tolerance of 10 minutes. The results exceed the Base Alternative OTP 

of 83 percent despite the addition of four passenger train round trips. The results indicate that the 

infrastructure investments of Alternative 90A more than compensate for the added corridor 

congestion stemming from the four express train round trips added in this alternative. 

Exhibit D-56 - 2035 Alternative 90A Simulated On-Time Performance – Passenger Trains

Threshold (min. late) 1 5 10 15

Adirondack / EAE 76.9% 96.2% 100.0% 100.0%

Lake Shore Limited 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Empire 86.8% 87.9% 89.0% 90.1%

LSL + Empire 88.6% 89.5% 90.5% 91.4%

Amtrak Total 86.3% 90.8% 92.4% 93.1%

3.3.2.Freight Operations

Exhibit D-57 shows the simulated results for 2035 CSXT operations under Alternative 90A. Overall, 

this alternative shows some degradation in freight train operation versus the 2008 case and the 

Base Alternative in terms of delay per 100 miles operated statistic (42.10 train delay-minutes per 

100 miles operated versus the 2008 benchmark of 36.83 train delay-minutes and the Base 

Alternative value of 36.31). Average speed shows improvement over the 2008 value (29.4 MPH 

versus 27.4 MPH) and is close to the Base Alternative (29.4 versus 30.3 MPH). While there is some 

increased congestion in the corridor in Alternative 90A versus the two previous cases with half the 

passenger train frequency, the results of this case reflect the fact that the preponderance of future 

CSXT growth is projected to be high priority intermodal trains. 

Exhibit D-57 - 2035 Alternative 90A Simulated Performance – Freight Trains

Train Group

Run-Time 

Train Count

Average 

Speed with 

Dwell

True Delay 

DD:HH:MM

Ideal Run 

Time 

DD:HH:MM Train Miles

Delay per 

100 Train 

Miles

Expedited* 334 33.6 24:07:01 85:04:17 88298.5 39.62

Freight** 502 23.1 18:17:23 87:12:54 58839.3 45.83

Total 836 29.4 42:24:24 172:17:11 147137.8 42.10

*Includes Auto, Intermodal, Guaranteed Intermodal 

**Includes Bulk, Empty Unit Coal, Grain, Local, Merchandise, Road Switcher , Unit, Yard, Coal

Exhibit D-58 shows average CSXT freight train trip times over the corridor in the Alternative 90A 

RTC run. Overall (Selkirk Yard to Buffalo, in both directions), Alternative 90A shows minor 

degradation versus the Base Alternative (8:23 versus 8:14) and significant improvement over 

today’s operation (8:23 versus 9:07). The trend in freight train reliability, as measured by the 

standard deviation of trip times over the corridor shows similar results. The Alternative 90A results 

show a standard deviation of 2:04 versus the Base Alternative value of 1:37 and the 2008 case 

value of 2:40. 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page D-53

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix D – Rail Network Operations Simulation 

Exhibit D-58 - 2035 Alternative 90A - Simulated Freight Trip Time Statistics and Reliability 

(Standard Deviation)

Buffalo -

Syracuse

Syracuse -

Selkirk Yard

Syracuse -

Buffalo

Selkirk Yard -

Syracuse

Average 4:04:20 3:55:31 4:31:35 4:11:12

Min 2:51:08 2:48:55 3:01:12 2:45:41

Max 15:41:40 9:40:05 7:52:10 9:02:59

Std Dev 1:20:26 1:04:27 0:54:38 1:21:22

3.4. 2035 Alternative 90B

Alternative 90B constructs a new dedicated passenger-only third track within the corridor, along 

with connections to the existing shared use tracks and sections of passenger-only fourth track to 

support “flying meets” between passenger trains. The existing shared use tracks remain at their 

current maximum speed of 79 MPH. 

3.4.1.Passenger Operations

Collectively, Exhibit D-59 and Exhibit D-60 show a representative 24 hour period of simulated 

Alternative 90B operations. The third and fourth passenger-only tracks are represented in green 

and use of these tracks show the steeply-sloped higher speed passenger trains. The use of the 

existing shared use tracks in Syracuse, Rochester and the Buffalo Exchange Street area (CP 437) can 

also be seen as these green lines change color briefly at those locations. The passenger train 

movements across the shared used tracks to access south side platforms at Syracuse, Rochester and 

Buffalo Depew do not appear to significantly delay freight trains, which have crossing path conflicts 

at these locations. 

Page D-54 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program 

New York State Department of Transportation 
Appendix D – Rail Network Operations Simulation Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Exhibit D-59 - 2035 Alternative 90B – AM String Chart

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page D-55

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix D – Rail Network Operations Simulation 

Exhibit D-60 - 2035 Alternative 90B – PM String Chart

Page D-56 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation 
Appendix D – Rail Network Operations Simulation Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Exhibit D-61 shows simulated passenger train on-time performance for Alternative 90B. The 

results exceed the program’s goal of 90 percent OTP with simulated OTP of 95.4 percent, based on 

the standard Amtrak lateness tolerance of 10 minutes. These results are notable in that, compared 

with the previously-presented RTC cases, the improved OTP was achieved while at same time 

significantly tightening the scheduled passenger train times. 

Exhibit D-61 - 2035 Alternative 90B On-Time Performance – Passenger Trains

Threshold (min. late) 1 5 10 15

Adirondack / EAE 64.3% 83.3% 83.3% 97.6%

Lake Shore Limited 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Empire 99.0% 99.0% 100.0% 100.0%

LSL + Empire 99.1% 99.1% 100.0% 100.0%

Amtrak Total 89.5% 94.8% 95.4% 99.3%

3.4.2.Freight Operations

Exhibit D-62 shows the simulated results for 2035 CSXT operations under Alternative 90B. Overall, 

this alternative shows improvement in freight train operation versus the 2008 case and the Base 

Alternative in terms of delay per 100 miles operated statistic (32.78 train delay-minutes per 100 

miles operated versus the 2008 benchmark of 36.83 train delay-minutes and the Base Alternative 

value of 36.31). Average speed shows improvement over the 2008 value (31.1 MPH versus 27.4 

MPH) and over the Base Alternative (31.1 versus 30.3 MPH). While this alternative introduces 

some passenger-freight crossing conflicts at Syracuse, Rochester and CP 437, the overall separation 

of freight and passenger trains along the corridor clearly have reliability benefits for both services. 

Exhibit D-62 - 2035 Alternative 90B Simulated Performance – Freight Trains

Train Group

Run-Time 

Train Count

Average 

Speed with 

Dwell

True Delay 

DD:HH:MM

Ideal Run 

Time 

DD:HH:MM Train Miles

Delay per 

100 Train 

Miles

Expedited* 335 36.3 17:04:03 83:16:50 87925.6 28.12

Freight** 510 23.4 16:16:43 91:15:59 60852.1 39.51

Total 845 31.1 33:20:46 175:08:49 148777.7 32.78

*Includes Auto, Intermodal, Guaranteed Intermodal 

**Includes Bulk, Empty Unit Coal, Grain, Local, Merchandise, Road Switcher , Unit, Yard, Coal

Exhibit D- shows average CSXT freight train trip times over the corridor in the Alternative 90B RTC 

run. Overall (Selkirk Yard to Buffalo, in both directions), Alternative 90B shows modest 

improvement in trip time versus the Base Alternative (8:09 versus 8:14) and significant 

improvement over today’s operation (8:09 versus 9:07). The Alternative 90B results show modest 

increases in freight train trip time variability, as measured by a standard deviation of 1:51 versus 

the Base Alternative value of 1:37. The results are significantly improved versus the 2008 case 

value of 2:40.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page D-57

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix D – Rail Network Operations Simulation 

Exhibit D-63 - 2035 Alternative 90B - Simulated Freight Trip Time Statistics and Reliability 

(Standard Deviation)

Buffalo -

Syracuse

Syracuse -

Selkirk Yard

Syracuse -

Buffalo

Selkirk Yard -

Syracuse

Average 4:17:19 4:09:00 4:25:20 3:49:54

Min 2:47:12 2:47:04 2:51:51 2:47:30

Max 17:09:38 12:19:13 7:02:44 7:45:39

Std Dev 1:46:01 1:32:33 0:57:25 1:03:00

3.5. 2035 Alternative 110

Alternative 110, similar to Alternative 90B, features a new dedicated passenger-only track within 

the Empire Corridor. The track is designed for a maximum operating speed of 110 MPH. A 

dedicated fourth track is provided at some locations to support “flying meets” between opposing 

direction trains; this track is designed for a maximum operating speed of 90 MPH. 

3.5.1.Passenger Operations

A representative 24 hour RTC simulation set of time-distance string charts are shown in Exhibit D64 (AM period) and Exhibit D-65 (PM period). As with Alternative 90B, the dedicated third and 

fourth tracks are shown in green. The slopes of the passenger train plots are steeper than 90B, 

indicating the faster average speeds versus the previous alternative. 

 

Page D-58 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program 

New York State Department of Transportation 
Appendix D – Rail Network Operations Simulation Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Exhibit D-64 - 2035 Alternative 110 – AM String Chart

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page D-59

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix D – Rail Network Operations Simulation 

Exhibit D-65 - 2035 Alternative 110 – PM String Chart

Page D-60 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program 

New York State Department of Transportation 
Appendix D – Rail Network Operations Simulation Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Exhibit D-66 shows simulated passenger train on-time performance for Alternative 110. The 

results exceed the program’s goal of 90 percent OTP with simulated OTP of 94.9 percent, based on 

the standard Amtrak lateness tolerance of 10 minutes. These results are notable in that, compared 

with the previously-presented RTC cases, the improved OTP was achieved while at same time 

significantly tightening the scheduled passenger train times.

Exhibit D-66 - 2035 Alternative 110 Simulated On-Time Performance – Passenger Trains

Threshold (min. late) 1 5 10 15

Adirondack / EAE 75.0% 75.0% 75.0% 92.9%

Lake Shore Limited 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Empire 97.9% 99.0% 100.0% 100.0%

LSL + Empire 98.2% 99.1% 100.0% 100.0%

Amtrak Total 93.5% 94.2% 94.9% 98.6%

3.5.2.Freight Operations

Exhibit D-67 shows the simulated results for 2035 CSXT operations under Alternative 110. Overall, 

this alternative has comparable results to Alternative 90B and shows improvement in freight train 

operation versus the 2008 case and the Base Alternative in terms of delay per 100 miles operated 

statistic (34.95 train delay-minutes per 100 miles operated versus the 2008 benchmark of 36.83 

train delay-minutes and the Base Alternative value of 36.31). Average speed shows improvement 

over the 2008 value (30.8 MPH versus 27.4 MPH) and over the Base Alternative (30.8 versus 30.3 

MPH). While this alternative introduces some passenger-freight crossing conflicts at Syracuse, 

Rochester and CP 437, the overall separation of freight and passenger trains along the corridor 

clearly have reliability benefits for both services.

Exhibit D-67 - 2035 Alternative 110 Simulated Performance – Freight Trains

Train Group

Run-Time 

Train Count

Average 

Speed with 

Dwell

True Delay 

DD:HH:MM

Ideal Run 

Time 

DD:HH:MM Train Miles

Delay per 

100 Train 

Miles

Expedited* 339 35.9 18:15:13 84:20:16 89191.1 30.09

Freight** 509 23.2 17:17:16 91:10:26 60592.1 42.11

Total 848 30.8 36:08:29 176:06:42 149783.2 34.95

*Includes Auto, Intermodal, Guaranteed Intermodal 

**Includes Bulk, Empty Unit Coal, Grain, Local, Merchandise, Road Switcher , Unit, Yard, Coal

Exhibit D-68 shows average CSXT freight train trip times over the corridor in the Alternative 110 

RTC run. Overall (Selkirk Yard to Buffalo, in both directions), Alternative 110 shows modest 

improvement in trip time versus the Base Alternative (8:04 versus 8:14) and significant 

improvement over today’s operation (8:04 versus 9:07). The Alternative 110 results show modest 

increases in freight train trip time variability, as measured by a standard deviation of 1:39 versus 

the Base Alternative value of 1:37. The results are significantly improved versus the 2008 case 

value of 2:40.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page D-61

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix D – Rail Network Operations Simulation 

Exhibit D-68 - 2035 Alt 110 - Simulated Freight Trip Time Statistics and Reliability (Standard 

Deviation)

Buffalo -

Syracuse

Syracuse -

Selkirk Yard

Syracuse -

Buffalo

Selkirk Yard -

Syracuse

Average 4:11:11 4:09:31 4:40:11 3:57:39

Min 2:47:06 2:46:08 2:54:10 2:48:17

Max 15:11:32 22:34:40 10:41:25 8:56:18

Std Dev 1:23:48 1:58:42 1:37:34 1:17:32

3.6. 2035 Alternative 125

Alternative 125 features a dedicated high speed rail alignment that diverges from the existing 

Corridor between Albany-Rensselaer and Buffalo. This alignment does not serve all existing Empire 

Corridor stations in this segment. Therefore, the existing service is retained on the shared 

passenger/freight corridor but no improvements to the existing shared used tracks are included 

except for those embodied in the Base Alternative. 

3.6.1.Passenger Operations

Alternative 125 time-distance “string” charts are shown in Exhibit D-69 and Exhibit D-70. The 125 

MPH dedicated high speed corridor tracks are represented by the purple and light blue lines. 

Operation of Base Alternative freight trains and the four round trip “legacy” passenger train service 

is represented by the red, blue and green colors used in the time-distance charts of the other 

alternatives. The dedicated high speed corridor was not simulated as its full double track 

configuration (no train meets or overtakes) and hourly headway supports highly reliable service. 

Page D-62 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program 

New York State Department of Transportation 
Appendix D – Rail Network Operations Simulation Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Exhibit D-69 - 2035 Alternative 125 – AM String Chart

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page D-63

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix D – Rail Network Operations Simulation 

Exhibit D-70 - 2035 Alternative 125 – PM String Chart

Page D-64 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation 
Appendix D – Rail Network Operations Simulation Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Exhibit D-71 shows passenger train on-time performance in the Alternative 125 case. The “legacy” 

results are the same as the Base Alternative results, with an OTP result of 83 percent (based on a 10 

minute lateness threshold). The dedicated two-track high speed rail line is assumed to have an OTP 

of 100 percent. Overall, the weighted average of the passenger train services is 95.6 percent, 

significantly exceeding the program goal of 90 percent. 

Exhibit D-71 - 2035 Alternative 125 Simulated On-Time Performance

Threshold (min. late) 1 5 10 15

Adirondack / EAE 89.7% 93.1% 93.4% 100.0%

Lake Shore Limited 71.4% 71.4% 71.4% 78.6%

Empire 57.8% 64.4% 75.6% 82.2%

LSL + Empire 61.0% 66.1% 74.6% 81.4%

High Speed Rail 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Passenger Train Overall 91.3% 92.6% 95.6% 96.3%

3.6.2.Freight Operations

Exhibit D-72 shows freight train results for Alternative 125 simulation. These are identical to the 

Base Alternative Overall, Alternative 125 shows virtually the same delay per 100 miles operated 

statistic (36.31 train delay-minutes per 100 miles operated versus the 2008 benchmark of 36.83 

train delay-minutes). Freight volume increases by some 119 trains during the seven day simulation 

period. Average speed actually improves with the Alternative 125 versus the 2008 benchmark, 

increasing from the 2008 average speed of 27.4 MPH to 30.3 MPH in this alternative. 

Exhibit D-72 - 2035 Alternative 125 Simulated Performance – Freight Trains

Train Group

Run-Time 

Train Count

Average 

Speed with 

Dwell

True Delay 

DD:HH:MM

Ideal Run 

Time 

DD:HH:MM Train Miles

Delay per 

100 Train 

Miles

Expedited* 335 34.8 19:15:39 86:09:00 88534.3 31.96

Freight** 505 23.5 17:11:53 86:22:11 58780.8 42.86

Total 840 30.3 37:03:32 173:07:11 147315.1 36.31

*Includes Auto, Intermodal, Guaranteed Intermodal 

**Includes Bulk, Empty Unit Coal, Grain, Local, Merchandise, Road Switcher , Unit, Yard, Coal

Exhibit D-73 shows freight trip times on the corridor in the Alternative 125 which are the same as 

the Base Alternative. Overall, measuring CSXT freight trip times between Selkirk Yard and Buffalo, 

the alternative shows an average trip time of 8:14 (versus 9:07 in the 2008 model), with a standard 

deviation of 1:37 (versus 2:40 in the 2008 model). The reduced variability (greater reliability) in 

trip time reflects the more predictable passenger train performance (which, in turn, results from 

the Albany, Albany-Schenectady, Syracuse and Rochester area improvements) as well as the future 

focus on better-performing intermodal trains. 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page D-65

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix D – Rail Network Operations Simulation 

Exhibit D-73 - 2035 Alternative 125 - Simulated Freight Trip Time Statistics and Reliability 

(Standard Deviation)

Buffalo -

Syracuse

Syracuse -

Selkirk Yard

Syracuse -

Buffalo

Selkirk Yard -

Syracuse

Average 4:04:16 4:06:31 4:11:14 4:00:54

Min 2:52:59 2:51:50 2:52:14 2:51:58

Max 16:30:37 9:07:45 8:57:31 8:56:32

Std Dev 1:22:23 1:15:07 0:57:51 1:06:53

Page D-66 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation 
E 

Appendix E Committed Highway, Bus, and Airport 

Improvement Projects
This page intentionally left blank. 
Appendix E – Committed Highway, Bus, and Airport Improvement Projects Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Table of Contents

1.Overview ................................................................................................................................................................ E-1

2.Highway Network................................................................................................................................................... E-1

3. Intercity Bus Service............................................................................................................................................... E-5

4. Air Travel Service.................................................................................................................................................... E-5

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page i 

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix E – Committed Highway, Bus, and Airport Improvement Projects 

List of Exhibits

Exhibit E-1 - Empire Corridor Station, Bus and Airport Locations.............................................................................. E-2

Exhibit E-2 - Amtrak Station, Bus and Airport Locations in Buffalo, Rochester and Syracuse Areas......................... E-3

Exhibit E-3 – Amtrak Station, Bus and Airport Locations in Utica, Albany and New York City Areas........................ E-4

Exhibit E-4 - Committed Improvements at the Major Airports in the Study Area..................................................... E-8

Page ii High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix E – Committed Highway, Bus, and Airport Improvement Projects Tier 1 Draft EIS 

1. Overview

The Base Alternative represents the future condition of the transportation network, given 

committed rail, highway, bus, and airport improvement projects that are within the Intercity Travel 

Market Study Area (i.e., the general geographic area served by the Empire Corridor). Exhibit 3-8 in 

Section 3.3.1 of Volume 1 of this EIS describes eight committed rail improvement projects that 

form the basis for the Base Alternative. The committed highway, bus and airport improvement 

projects that form the basis for the Base Alternative are described in Appendix E. 

Sources of information used to develop the year 2035 Base Alternative include:

• New York State Department of Transportation, Statewide Transportation Improvement 

Program (STIP),

• Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), financially constrained Long Range 

Transportation Improvement Plans (LRTPs), and Transportation Improvement Plans (TIPS),

• Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Terminal Area Forecast Summary, Fiscal Years 2010-

2030, and

• Relevant Airport Master Plans.

Planned infrastructure improvements to the highway infrastructure (automobile and bus modes) 

and airport infrastructure were accounted for in forecasts of market demand and ridership as part 

of the Base Alternative (refer to Appendix B). 

2. Highway Network 

The Base Alternative highway system that currently serves the Intercity Travel Market Study Area 

is shown in Exhibit E-1, Exhibit E-2, and Exhibit E-3 The primary vehicular corridor in the Base

Alternative runs along the Empire Corridor and can be broken down into three major segments, all 

part of the New York State Thruway. These segments are: Interstate Route 87 (I-87) north from 

New York City to Albany (approximately 160 miles); Interstate Route 90 (I-90) west from Albany to 

Buffalo (approximately 293 miles); and, Interstate Route 190 (I-190) north from Buffalo to Niagara 

Falls (approximately 21 miles). The three segments are primarily four lane highways with the 

exception of six lane segments in some of the urban areas. All segments are part of the 570 mile 

long system of limited access highways located within New York State and operated by the New 

York State Thruway Authority. The Thruway segments stretching from the New York City border at 

Yonkers through Buffalo are toll roads. 

Drivers traveling between the New York City downstate region and upstate cities of Syracuse, 

Rochester and Buffalo are likely to travel one or more of the following nine highways: 

• Interstate Route 87 (I-87), 

• Interstate Route 287 (I-287),

• State Route 17 (Rt. 17), 

• Interstate Route 81 (I-81),

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page E-1 

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix E – Committed Highway, Bus, and Airport Improvement Projects 

• State Route 15 (Rt. 15), 

• Interstate Route 90 (I-90),

• Interstate Route 190 (I-190),

• Interstate Route 390 (I-390),

• Interstate Route 86 (I-86).

Exhibit E-1 - Empire Corridor Station, Bus and Airport Locations

Page E-2 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix E – Committed Highway, Bus, and Airport Improvement Projects Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Exhibit E-2 - Amtrak Station, Bus and Airport Locations in Buffalo, Rochester and Syracuse Areas

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page E-3 

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix E – Committed Highway, Bus, and Airport Improvement Projects 

Exhibit E-3 – Amtrak Station, Bus and Airport Locations in Utica, Albany and New York City Areas

Page E-4 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix E – Committed Highway, Bus, and Airport Improvement Projects Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Committed Highway Improvements

The Base Alternative includes the existing highway system as well as funded and programmed 

improvements on the intercity highway network based on financially constrained Long Range 

Transportation Plans (LRTP) and Transportation Improvement Programs (TIP) developed by 

metropolitan transportation planning agencies. Intercity highway improvements included as part of 

the Base Alternative include projects that would increase the capacity of the roadways and thus 

reduce travel time. These improvements consist primarily of individual interchange improvements 

and roadway widening projects on limited segments of the highway network that are programmed 

to be in operation by 2035. In addition, there are various major highway and bridge capacity 

improvements under evaluation throughout the study area, particularly in the New York City 

region. Refer to Section 4.24 of Volume 1 of this EIS for a list of fully funded and programmed 

improvements that are part of the Base Alternative. Other projects in the LRTPs and TIPs are for 

items such as: the replacement of existing bridges, drainage upgrades, bridge repainting and 

inspection, roadway surface repaving, local roadway traffic signal upgrades, and bicycle/pedestrian 

access improvements. These types of improvement projects, while important to maintaining and 

enhancing the highway network, do not in themselves add considerable additional highway 

capacity, and so they were not included in this section.

3. Intercity Bus Service

Nonstop bus service exists between all the major cities along the Empire Corridor and is provided 

by three major private carriers: Adirondack Trailways (which also includes Pine Hill Trailways and 

New York Trailways), Greyhound, and Mega Bus. Adirondack Trailways is the predominant carrier 

followed by Greyhound. Exhibit E-1, Exhibit E-2, and Exhibit E-3 show the location of the largest 

bus stations serving major markets in the Intercity Travel Market Study Area. As described in 

Section 2.2.2, Transportation Market Study, of Volume 1 of this EIS, there were nearly 1.5 million 

Empire Corridor major market bus trips in 2009. 

Committed Intercity Bus Improvements

No long-range planning data are available to estimate the future number of intercity bus trips that 

will operate between Niagara Falls/Buffalo and New York City, as well as other intercity travel 

markets in the program study area. Therefore, it was assumed that by 2035, the number of intercity 

bus trips will increase proportionately to meet the projected bus travel demand growth. Buses will 

continue to use the Thruway and interstate highway system. 

4. Air Travel Service 

The Intercity Travel Market Study Area is served by the following ten commercial service airports, 

which are illustrated on Exhibit E-1, Exhibit E-2, and Exhibit E-3: 

• Newark Liberty International,

• John F. Kennedy International,

• LaGuardia Airport, 

• Westchester County Airport, 

• Stewart International, 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page E-5 

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix E – Committed Highway, Bus, and Airport Improvement Projects 

• Albany International, 

• Syracuse-Hancock International,

• Greater Rochester International, 

• Buffalo-Niagara International,

• Niagara Falls International.

It is important to note that many of these airports do not provide direct commercial service 

between the same New York State intercity markets as the Amtrak Empire Service. The Intercity 

Travel Market Study Area is also served by a number of smaller municipal, county and general 

aviation airports. As airlines continue to consolidate into major hub airports and focus on the more 

profitable long-haul services, passenger service to these airports may be further reduced. One 

recent example of this occurrence is Pinnacle’s Colgan Air unit (which operated flights for US 

Airways), which discontinued air service from the Buffalo-Niagara International Airport to Albany 

International in October of 2010. 

Committed Air Facility Improvements

Exhibit E-4 provides a general overview of the committed improvements at the ten major airports 

that serve the Intercity Travel Market Study Area. It is important to note that the primary corridor 

for intercity airline travel in New York State is between airports in Niagara Falls/Buffalo, Rochester 

and the New York City area. The other cities located between these locations have more attractive 

travel options available, such as automobile, bus and intercity rail; and so the committed airport 

enhancements noted below are less likely to be as critical for such travelers. 

Committed airport improvements noted here focus on operational improvements benefiting 

runway capacity and consider airspace, surface, gate, and terminal/passenger flow constraints. The 

FAA’s Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) program will transform air traffic 

control from current ground-based technologies such as radar and radio beacons to satellite-based 

technologies such as GPS and digital communications. In anticipation of future air traffic growth, 

NextGen capabilities will help commercial airports accommodate the demand for additional 

capacity. For example, the use of newly available surface surveillance data to track aircraft and 

vehicles will enhance safety and allow airports to make better use of existing capacity. Additionally, 

the FAA is implementing Performance Based Navigation procedures, designed to allow aircraft to 

operate simultaneously on closely spaced parallel runways. This first phase of NextGen features 

actions that the FAA is currently committed to implement within the next ten years.1 NextGen I will 

likely expand capacity and permit realignment of departure and arrival airspace patterns. This 

action will produce capacity increases for each airport. 

Westchester County Airport’s passenger volume is capped at 2.24 million passengers as a result of 

limitations placed on it by agreement with the surrounding communities of Purchase, New York, 

and Greenwich, Connecticut. In 2009, 1.93 million passengers used this airport, and if it were 

unconstrained, its volume could grow well beyond that. There are no new terminal or existing 

terminal expansion plans at Westchester County Airport. Current terminal plans are limited to 

terminal upgrades to better accommodate passengers and improve safety operations.2 

1

 /Federal Aviation Administration. NextGen Implementation Plan. March 2012. 2 /Westchester County Planning Board. 2012 Capital Project Requests; Report of the Westchester County Planning Board. Adopted August 

2, 2011.

Page E-6 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Appendix E – Committed Highway, Bus, and Airport Improvement Projects Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Criteria for airport development were derived to review proposed projects and determine their 

likelihood for implementation and operation by the year 2035. Proposed airport improvements 

were evaluated based on a review of available documentation, local area knowledge, and public 

agency input. An airport improvement is deemed likely to be implemented and operational by 2035 

if the improvement meets the following criteria:

• Has been identified in an approved or under-development airport master planning program, 

environmental document, regional aviation system planning document, or capital improvement 

program, and

• Is reasonably practical to be placed into operation by 2035.

By applying this approach, the airport improvements likely to be funded, programmed, and 

operational by 2035 are summarized in Exhibit E-4. 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page E-7 

New York State Department of Transportation
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix E – Committed Highway, Bus, and Airport Improvement Projects 

Exhibit E-4 - Committed Improvements at the Major Airports in the Study Area

Airport Committed Improvements

Newark Liberty International Terminal B modernization. Terminal A modernization, expansion and 

structural parking. Terminal and roadway improvements. Additional 

major terminal, parking, and runway/taxiway improvements are being 

studied.

John F. Kennedy International New JetBlue terminal, roads and garages. New American Airlines 

terminal parking garage and other terminal and roadway 

improvements. Additional, major terminal, parking, and 

runway/taxiway improvements are being studied.

LaGuardia Central terminal building modernization, terminal and roadway 

improvements are programmed. Additional major terminal and 

parking improvements are being studied. 

Westchester County There are no major capital improvements programmed that will 

enhance airport operations or multi-modal access. 

Stewart International The Port Authority is investing $150 million dollars between 2011 and 

2020 to address runway, terminal, and airfield shortfalls, with much of 

this spending marked for airside improvements (new taxiways, 

rehabilitation of runways, etc.).

Albany International A recently completed multi-million dollar capital redevelopment 

project included a new 230,000 sq. ft. terminal parking garage, Air 

Traffic Control Tower, and cargo facility. The airport has embarked on 

a five-year $232 million capital plan to improve and maintain safety.

Syracuse-Hancock International There are no major capital improvements programmed that will 

enhance airport operations or multi-modal access. 

Greater Rochester International Final phase of terminal renovation project. Runway 10-28 extension to 

construct 600 feet of new runway at the east end of Runway 10-28.

The new runway segment will be used for aircraft taking off in the 

westerly direction. This project also includes extending Taxiway B by 

600 feet to connect to the new runway end.

Buffalo-Niagara International There are no major capital improvements programmed that will 

enhance airport operations or multi-modal access. Per the Master 

Plan, an environmental assessment for future capital plan projects will 

be prepared (FY 2012-2015 time frame). 

Niagara Falls International Runway 6/24 safety improvements. 

Sources: The Port Authority Strategic Plan, Transportation for Regional Prosperity, August 2006. 

Syracuse-Hancock International website: http://www.syrairport.org/about/projects/current.cfm

Greater Rochester International website: http://www.monroecounty.gov/airport-plans.php

Buffalo - Niagara International website: http://www.buffaloairport.com/pdfs/Projects.pdf

Page E-8 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
F

Appendix F Capital, Operating and Maintenance Costs Estimating 

Methodology
This page intentionally left blank. 
Capital, Operating and Maintenance Costs Estimating Methodology Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................ F-1

2. Rolling Stock Cost Estimating Methodology ........................................................................................................... F-1

3. Infrastructure Capital Cost Estimating Methodology ............................................................................................. F-7

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page i 

New York State Department of Transportation 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Capital, Operating and Maintenance Costs Estimating Methodology 

List of Exhibits

Exhibit F-1 - Capital Cost Per Train ............................................................................................................................. F-2

Exhibit F-2 – NYSDOT Empire Corridor Fleet Requirements....................................................................................... F-6

Exhibit F-3 -NYSDOT Empire Corridor Fleet Capital Costs .......................................................................................... F-7

Exhibit F-4 - Unit Costs by Category of Work.............................................................................................................. F-9

Page ii High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Capital, Operating and Maintenance Costs Estimating Methodology Tier 1 Draft EIS 

1. Introduction

In configuring alternatives for the Empire Corridor High Speed Rail Program, it was necessary to 

develop costs for required additional rail rolling stock (coaches and locomotives), and for the 

infrastructure improvements that would produce the intended service improvements.

2. Rolling Stock Cost Estimating Methodology

The following material presents the results of an analysis prepared to estimate a reasonable capital 

cost (in November 2011 economics) for the following types of equipment:

• 79 to 110 mph diesel locomotive hauled, five car train sets 

• 125 mph, 400 seat (five passenger car) electrically powered dual mode train sets, either 

dual mode locomotive hauled or dual mode Diesel/Electric Multiple Units 

• 160 mph, 400 seat electrically powered train sets, either locomotive hauled or EMU

• 220 mph electrically powered High Speed Rail (HSR) EMU train sets.

The vehicles operating up to 125 mph will likely be similar to equipment currently in operation on 

Amtrak’s Empire and Northeast Corridors (for either Amtrak or New Jersey Transit). This 

equipment already complies with the Federal Railway Administration (FRA) Tier I structural 

requirements. The vehicles operating over 150 mph will need to comply with the FRA’s Tier III 

requirements. As there is no equipment currently operating in North America that operates at 

these speeds, high speed trains now operating in both Europe and Asia would need to be redeveloped to meet these requirements. This higher speed equipment was analyzed in support of 

the alternatives scoping process through which the five alternatives selected for detailed analysis 

was conducted.

Vehicle capital costs were estimated based largely on contract values for vehicles of similar 

capacities and capabilities. Allowances for the additional development cost needed to produce 

vehicles suitable for service in this corridor were included. It was assumed that there would be not 

be an already developed Tier III compliant vehicle available.

The estimated capital cost per train set in current dollars is in Exhibit F-1: 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page F-1 

New York State Department of Transportation 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Capital, Operating and Maintenance Costs Estimating Methodology 

Exhibit F-1 - Capital Cost Per Train

Capital Cost Per Train set Baseline Estimate Suggested Range

(-5% to +5%)

Order of 14 Five Car Diesel Train sets 

(79-110 mph)

$23.6 million $22.4 - $24.8 million

Order of 29 Five Car Diesel Train sets 

(79-110 mph)

$21.8 million $20.7 - $22.8 million

Order of 19 Five Car Dual Mode Train 

sets (125 mph)

$25.2 million $23.9 - $26.4 million

Order of 17 Seven Car Electric Train 

sets (160 mph)

$56.9 million $54.0 - $59.7 million

Order of 16 Eight Car Electric HSR Train 

sets (220 mph)

$67.4 million $64.0 - $70.8 million

Note: Capital costs have been updated to reflect the Programmatic EIS base year for capital costing of 2015.

The 125 mph dual mode train is assumed to be comprised of one dual mode locomotive and five 

unpowered coaches for the purpose of capital cost estimates. Capital costs at the top-end of the 

suggested range were used to ensure that the program budgets are conservatively estimated and to 

avoid the public perception of appearing to under-estimate vehicle procurement costs.

NYSDOT is in the early stages of developing their next generation of passenger equipment to 

service the Empire Corridor in New York State. To support this development process, HNTB was 

asked to estimate capital costs for these new generation train sets. The options costed were: 

• 79-110 mph corridor utilizing dual mode diesel-electric locomotives hauling five passenger 

cars 

• 125 mph, 400 seat (five passenger car) electrically powered dual mode train sets, either 

dual mode locomotive hauled or dual mode Diesel/Electric Multiple Units 

• 160 mph corridor utilizing 400 seat electrically powered train sets

• 220 mph corridor utilizing 400 seat electrically powered train sets

Included in all of the above cases are food service cars in each train. It was assumed that all the 

trains would be single level and that they would need to be delivered in time for service to begin in 

2018.

All of the equipment options are assumed to comply with the relevant FRA structural requirements. 

That is to say that the equipment would be built to US standards and would not be expected to 

operate under an FRA waiver. For the lower speed corridors (i.e. 125 mph or less), there already 

Page F-2 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Capital, Operating and Maintenance Costs Estimating Methodology Tier 1 Draft EIS 

exists FRA Tier I compliant equipment similar to, if not identical to equipment that would be 

suitable for service on the Empire Corridor. It is more problematic to develop methods of costing 

equipment for the higher speed alternatives (160 mph and 220 mph). The only true HSR 

equipment operating on the Amtrak network are the Tier II compliant 150 mph Acela train sets first 

put into operational service approximately 10 years ago. However, these train sets are not suitable 

for the NYSDOT higher speed service and instead trains built to the FRA’s Tier III regulations would 

be required. To date, no Tier III compliant equipment has been built. While most recent HSR trains 

have been more or less standard in design, some suppliers have recently built unique vehicles as in 

the case of the Siemens built Russian Velaro HSR train set. These procurements allow for a 

comparative analysis to be performed as verification of the estimated vehicle capital costs. 

The estimated market capital costs for the NYSDOT train sets were developed using an escalated 

average of several contract values from recent procurements. The pricing for the Tier I compliant 

vehicles was largely based on similar recent domestic procurements. The estimated capital costs 

for the higher speed Tier III vehicles were based primarily on European vehicle procurements. 

With the exception of the dual mode diesel locomotives and the lower speed passenger cars, it is 

expected that the vehicles will be based on existing European designs and built with European 

components. Consequently, an escalation factor based on European (Eurostat) economic indicators 

was used to inflate all of vehicle unit capital costs to current economics. The specific data used is as 

follows:

Material (50% of original vehicle capital cost): 

• Eurostat C25 – Manufacture of metal products except machinery and equipment

• Eurostat MIG – Intermediate and Capital Goods Industry

Labor (40% of original vehicle capital cost): 

• Eurostat C27 – Manufacture of electrical equipment

• Eurostat C30 – Manufacture of other transport equipment

• Eurostat CAP - Capital Goods

Note that only 90 percent of the vehicle capital cost was inflated using this data. The remaining 10

percent was assumed to be fixed. After inflating the vehicle capital costs in Euros, the costs were 

converted to US dollars using currency exchange rate data from Olsen and Associates (oanda.com).

This analysis does not consider any physical variation in the different train sets. Interior 

appointments, power supply and train control systems and even the numbers of passenger cars can 

differ from one order to the next. As such, the average capital cost developed from this analysis 

provides only a starting point. In addition, a 10percent contingency was added to the average 

vehicle capital cost to account for some of these discrepancies.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page F-3 

New York State Department of Transportation 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Capital, Operating and Maintenance Costs Estimating Methodology 

The NYSDOT HSR train sets will be, like the Amtrak Acela train sets already in service, considerably 

different from more or less standard Velaro or TGV/AGV train sets in service overseas. As noted 

above, this is because the vehicles will need to meet the much more stringent FRA Tier III 

crashworthiness standards and not the UIC standards generally in effect elsewhere. Consequently, 

considerable re-design and testing will be needed to develop a satisfactory vehicle. This effort is 

accounted for by estimating the incremental engineering, material and set-up costs needed to 

produce this vehicle.

The other vehicles under consideration will also need varying degrees of incremental engineering. 

For example, there currently is no dual mode diesel-electric locomotive on the market that will be 

able to meet the diesel emissions standards that will be in effect by 2018. These costs, including 

production set-up costs, were estimated for each vehicle type.

In all cases, the engineering costs were developed by estimating the additional engineering hours 

needed for the duration of the program and then by applying standard industry hourly rates. For 

the high speed equipment, a five year development and three year production schedule was 

assumed based on the schedules included in the January 2010 UIC report titled “Necessities for 

Future High Speed Rolling Stock”. Shorter development schedules were assumed for the 125 mph 

and slower equipment.

Material and set-up costs were estimated based on the scope of the program using several recent 

domestic railcar procurements as points of reference. 

These additional recurring and non-recurring costs were added to the average escalated capital 

cost developed as noted above to come up with estimated capital costs for each train type. In the 

case of the diesel powered trains, the non-recurring costs were applied to two different order sizes 

(14 and 29 trains). The results are listed in the table above. These capital costs include the 

following:

• Engineering, testing and project management costs for the duration of the program

• Manufacturing set-up costs

• Other non-recurring costs including vehicle mock-ups, training, manuals, spare parts, 

special tools and diagnostic equipment

The estimated vehicle capital costs do not include any maintenance facilities or contracts, 

management contracts as well any internal costs for NYSDOT needed to manage this program. 

Given the very preliminary nature of the proposed high speed corridor, a simple comparative 

analysis was done between the estimated capital cost per NYSDOT HSR train sets and two other 

non-standard HSR train sets.

The two HSR train sets that were used to compare pricing were the eight Russian Railways Velaro 

(Velaro RUS) train sets ordered from Siemens in 2006 and the Amtrak Acela train sets. Both 

Page F-4 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Capital, Operating and Maintenance Costs Estimating Methodology Tier 1 Draft EIS 

projects include considerable engineering effort needed for these projects (the Velaro RUS had to 

be redesigned for the larger Russian loading gauge and for different power supplies).

The average escalated capital cost for these two projects is approximately $70 million per vehicle as 

compared to the $55-60 million capital cost estimate for the NYSDOT HSR train sets. However, the 

Velaro RUS order was only for eight vehicles and the Acela train sets were ordered some time ago 

(13 years) from Bombardier/Alstom. To provide a better comparison, the engineering and other 

non-recurring costs that were developed for the NYSDOT HSR train sets were applied over eight 

‘standard’ HRS vehicles instead of the 16 vehicles as above. The resulting capital cost estimate is 

within 10 percent of the escalated Velaro Russian Railways capital cost, thus validating the 

estimated incremental costs. 

Exhibit F-2 shows the Empire Corridor fleet requirements for each of the Alternatives, comparing 

them incrementally versus the Base Alternative (No Action). 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page F-5 

New York State Department of Transportation 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Capital, Operating and Maintenance Costs Estimating Methodology 

Exhibit F-2 – NYSDOT Empire Corridor Fleet Requirements

Table 1. NYSDOT Empire Corridor Fleet Requirements

Start Location

Current

Base 

Alternative 90A 90B 110 125

RequiredIncrementalRequiredIncrementalRequiredIncrementalRequiredIncrementalRequiredIncrementalRequiredIncremental

Albany 6 0 6 0 6 0 7 1 7 1 6 0

Niagara Falls 2 0 2 0 5 3 5 3 5 3 2 0

New York (Sunnyside Yard) 2 0 2 0 4 2 3 1 3 1 2 0

Rutland 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0

Montreal 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0

Toronto 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0

Buffalo (Dual Mode) 8 8

New York (Dual Mode) 6 6

TOTAL (Before Spares) 13 0 13 0 18 5 18 5 18 5 27 14

Spare Factor 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

TOTAL (With Spares) 16 0 16 0 22 6 22 6 22 6 33 17

The Base Alternative has no incremental fleet requirement versus today’s operation. Exhibit F-3

shows the estimated Empire Corridor fleet capital costs by Alternative in 2015 dollars. The total 

figures at the bottom of the table include a 5 percent contingency. In addition to the figures shown, 

a 12 percent allowance for procurement support should be included. This sum reflects the cost of 

specification development (to the extent not already specified by the current PRIIA Next Generation 

Equipment Committees), manufacturing inspections, testing and commissioning. 

Page F-6 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Capital, Operating and Maintenance Costs Estimating Methodology Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Exhibit F-3 -NYSDOT Empire Corridor Fleet Capital Costs

Table 2. NYSDOT Empire Corridor Fleet Capital Costs

(In 2015 Dollars)

Base 

Alternative 90A 90B 110 125

Incremental Fleet Requirement 

(With Spares) - Diesel 0 6 6 6 0

Incremental Fleet Requirement 

(With Spares) - Dual Mode 0 0 0 0 17

2011 Capital Cost Estimate 

(Per Train Set) $ 23,600,000 $ 23,600,000 $ 23,600,000 $ 23,600,000 $ 25,200,000

Contingency (5%) (Per Train Set) $ 1,180,000 $ 1,180,000 $ 1,180,000 $ 1,180,000 $ 1,260,000

2011 Capital Cost Estimate 

(with Contingency) (Per Train Set) $ 24,780,000 $ 24,780,000 $ 24,780,000 $ 24,780,000 $ 26,460,000

2015 Capital Cost Estimate 

(with Contingency) (Per Train Set) $ 28,436,000 $ 28,436,000 $ 28,436,000 $ 28,436,000 $ 30,363,000

Total 2015 Capital Cost –

Vehicles $ - $ 170,616,000

$ 

170,616,000

$ 

170,616,000

$ 

516,171,000

Note: 3.5% Annual Inflation Rate Assumed

3. Infrastructure Capital Cost Estimating Methodology

The New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) is evaluating investment alternatives 

to increase speed, reduce travel time, and improve the schedule reliability of Amtrak’s Empire 

Corridor passenger rail service. NYSDOT, with FRA concurrence, has identified five alternatives by 

which to achieve these program goals. A major factor in evaluating the relative merits of these 

alternatives is their capital cost, which includes the cost of upgrading existing or building new track, 

grade crossings, signal and switch systems, and propulsion improvements, combined with the cost 

of locomotives and passenger coaches (rolling stock or “equipment”) and the cost of new or 

expanded maintenance facilities and train stations. This document explains the methodology by 

which these capital costs were developed for the five Empire Corridor High Speed Rail Program 

alternatives, covering property acquisition, design and permitting, construction, and overall 

contingency estimates to address uncertainty at this early stage of the program. 

In general, for a Tier 1 EIS, costs of alternatives are estimated at a high level. They are not detailed 

for two reasons:

1. There is insufficient engineering detail available at this stage to permit precise 

estimates; alignments are conceptual, and it is not possible to be precise about the 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page F-7 

New York State Department of Transportation 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Capital, Operating and Maintenance Costs Estimating Methodology 

number and specific design of bridges, new track and signals, structural and earth work 

(cut and fill) requirements, grade separations at rail/road crossings, etc.; and

2. The actual year of construction of each improvement is not known, so the precise net 

present value of the future year investment cannot be reliably predicted in current 

dollar terms.

Given these two conditions, it is not possible to produce precise cost estimates. Rather, unit costs 

are applied consistently across all alternatives. For example, a unit cost for simple bridge 

structures may be stated as $20,000/linear foot (for a two-track bridge). Thus, if the bridge is 60’ 

long (spanning, perhaps, a simple two-lane road), the construction cost of the bridge would be 

estimated to be $1,200,000, irrespective of the intended year of construction. As such, the cost of 

alternatives for which improvements will be constructed further into the future will be understated 

relative to alternatives for which most of the improvements will be constructed sooner, since the 

erosive effects of inflation will ultimately lead to higher costs in absolute dollar terms as time 

passes. Thus, if inflation is estimated at 3.5 percent over a five year period, a bridge which costs 

$1M in the first year, will be likely to cost 3.5 percent more each successive year, $1,003,500 in the 

second year, $1,007,015 in the third year, and so forth.

The purpose of a Tier I EIS is to ensure that costs are estimated in consistent terms across the 

alternatives being evaluated, such that values for each alternative can be reasonably compared. 

This approach supports rational decision making by NYSDOT and the public based on common 

understandings of the likely relative cost of each alternative compared to the others.

To ensure such commonality in the final cost estimates, this analysis has employed unit costs for all 

major elements of the required railroad system improvements. These unit costs are taken either 

from recent costs in the marketplace or from recognized industry values typically employed in 

estimating construction costs. Unit costs may be different by region or type of construction. For 

example, the cost of trenching for utilities may be higher in the Northeast than in the Southwest, 

reflecting both the different costs of living and labor, and, possibly, the simpler work of excavating 

in sandy desert material than in rock-laden heavy, wet soils. In many cases, “typical” costs for 

construction activities and elements are listed by city or region, to address these distinctions.

Exhibit F-4 gives unit costs for the various components from which the infrastructure estimates 

were compiled for each alternative.

Page F-8 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Capital, Operating and Maintenance Costs Estimating Methodology Tier 1 Draft EIS 

Exhibit F-4 - Unit Costs by Category of Work

For the Empire Corridor program, these unit costs were applied to the estimated or measured 

amount of each item. For example, for Alternative 110, a total of 1,118,890 linear feet of fencing 

were estimated to be required, at an average cost of $4,248/mile, for a total of $90,203,000 for this 

item. Similarly, costs were generated for all of the other cost categories, based on measurements 

along the entire 463-mile Empire Corridor right of way for each alternative.

$40,000 Marsh $12.00 per SY $12 per LF $140 Secondary

$85,000 Farmland $224 Highway

$200,000 Suburban

$800,000 Town

$200 Residence $175 Yard or Spur $125 Pipe

$350 Buisness $225 Main Track $1,000 60-100 sf $5,000 per track

$1,800 100-140 sf

$2,300 140-180 sf

$12,000 Country $40 5 feet or less $175 Conc. $2,800 Single Trk.

$16,000 Town $80 5 to 13 feet $85 Steel Girder $3,200 Double Trk.

$20,000 City $125 Steel Truss $3,600 Tripple Trk.

$4,200 Four Trks.

$12 Open $25 Main Trk. $400 Conc. 36-48' $350,000 Small Rural

$20 Retained $15 Yard Trk. $375 Steel 30-60' $400,000 Medium

$12 Unused Trk. $650 Steel 60-80' $500,000 Larger Crossing

$900 Steel 80-120' $8,000 Farm or Private

$12 Earth $30,000 No. 8 $75 11-20' MSE

$50 Rock $32,000 No 10 $65 2-10' Conc

$54,000 No. 15 $120 10-20' Cant.

$72,000 No. 20 $180 over 20' Cant.

$20 8' CLF $ 85,000 No 8

$24 8' w/BW $ 95,000 No 10

$40 Security $ 195,000 No. 15

$ 235,000 No. 20

$ 2,000,000 No 32.7

$8 2 ft. or less Variable 20% to 150%

$12 2 to 4 feet of Trackwork Value

PHASING

BUILDING ACQUISTION

SUBGRADE PREP. &

ADDITIVE FOR COMPLEX

PROPERTY ACQ. (per Acre)

AND REMOVAL (per SF)

CLEARING (per Acre)

FILL SECTION (per CY)

EXCAVATION (per CY)

DITCHING (per LF)

SUB-BALLAST

FENCING (per LF)

HIGHWAY RELOC. (per SY)

CULVERTS (per SF)

NEW BRIDGES (per SF)

NEW TRACK (per Track-Foot)

TRACK THROWS (per Track-Foot)

TURNOUTS (Each)

RETIRE TRACK (per Track-Foot)

RETIRE TUNROUTS (Each) WALLS (per SF)

PRIVATE (Each)

PUBLIC (per Track-Foot)

EROSION CONTROL

DRAINAGE PIPES & BOX

RETAINING

GRADE CROSSINGS

GRADE CROSSINGS

WARNING SYSTEM (Each)

Property Track & Signals Bridges & Structures Roads & Crossings

BRIDGE DEMO (per SF)

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page F-9 

New York State Department of Transportation 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Capital, Operating and Maintenance Costs Estimating Methodology 

Engineering design and permitting costs are generally derived on the basis of the scale and 

complexity of the intended construction job, and range between 8-15 percent of the cost of 

construction. Thus, for purposes of high level project cost estimating, a project that was estimated 

to cost $100 million would be expected to have a design and permitting cost between $8-$15 

million. Since rail construction is quite intricate, the engineering and permitting costs are generally 

anticipated to be in the higher range, and the 15 percent multiplier was applied to the derived 

construction costs for each alternative.

Property acquisition was estimated based on the need to straighten curved track sections, as well 

as for land with which to implement grade separations in place of at-grade vehicular crossings. 

Depending upon the location of each improvement, distinctions were made among rural, suburban 

and urban land, and property unit costs were applied to each, on the basis of current average values 

in each geographic area applied to the acreage required in that area.

A contingency is a factor applied to capital cost estimates associated with unknown or unknowable 

conditions. Until geotechnical analysis is performed, for example, the structural support 

requirements for a bridge cannot be precisely estimated. Therefore, after applying average unit 

costs with which to estimate the bridge cost, a contingency factor is applied to accommodate the 

possibility of the bridge being more expensive in unfavorable geology. Equally, since property 

values cannot be known until the actual acquisition, average unit costs are subjected to a significant 

contingency factor as well. Applying these contingency factors ensures that a realistic appraisal of 

the true potential cost of an alternative can be assessed. Normally, at the initiation of a project, a 

contingency as high as 50 percent may be assigned, reflecting the absence of specific technical data 

with which to precisely estimate costs of each element of the project. Combining the unit-costderived project estimate with the contingency gives a reasonable value to carry going into design. 

As design advances and more is known, actual costs can be estimated with greater precision and 

the contingency reduced.

In the Empire Corridor High Speed Rail program, mile-by-mile engineering analysis of the existing 

rail infrastructure was undertaken to determine the approximate length of new track, straight 

track, higher-speed switches, new switches, grade crossings, earth work, bridge structures, signal 

system augmentation and improvement, and propulsion system that would be needed for each 

alternative. The cost of these improvements were then estimated based on unit costs for equivalent 

work in current dollar terms. Despite the mile-by-mile assessment, however, considerable 

uncertainty remains associated with the timing of each improvement, work-around issues flowing 

from the need to maintain both freight and passenger service during construction, community 

issues associated with local traffic requirements where grade crossings must be maintained, sitespecific geotechnical information for bridges, environmental permitting requirements for bridges 

over regulated waterways and wetland areas, contamination levels in soils to be disturbed during 

construction or requiring disposal off site, and utility agreements necessary to address utility 

relocations that may be required. All of these factors can significantly influence actual construction 

costs when the improvement finally goes to construction.

Page F-10 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Capital, Operating and Maintenance Costs Estimating Methodology Tier 1 Draft EIS 

To establish practical, comparable costs among the alternatives in view of these uncertainties, a 

hard-construction contingency of 35percent has been applied to the estimated construction costs of 

the elements contained in each alternative. Because the complexity of designing the rail 

improvements remains uncertain without further clarification as to final alignments, and because 

the amount and type of property required also cannot be precisely defined until final alignments 

are established, a 35 percent contingency was applied to the engineering design, permitting and 

property acquisition costs as well. This contingency is felt to be appropriate to the level of detail 

developed for the alternatives at this stage in the program. It is not as high as a 50 percent 

contingency that might be applied if the program cost were estimated on an overall “cost/mile” 

value for generalized new rail construction, nor is it as low as the 10 percent contingency that 

might be applied when detailed design has been completed and most of these facts are reasonably 

well understood. Rather, it strikes a balance between the mile-by-mile specific decisions about the 

particular track, signal and propulsion improvements that will be needed, and the lack of specific 

design work necessary to ensure that these improvements can be built as envisioned.

The Empire Corridor High Speed Rail program capital costs for infrastructure improvements were 

estimated on the basis of unit costs for specific track, signal, switch, propulsion, earthwork and 

property elements applied to a mile-by-mile assessment of exactly which of these improvements 

will be needed for each alternative, these capital costs then adjusted with a 35 percent contingency 

to reflect uncertainty about actual conditions and design feasibility for each identified 

improvement.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page F-11

New York State Department of Transportation 
This page intentionally left blank. 
G.

Appendix G Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation
This page intentionally left blank. 
Table of Contents Tier 1 Draft EIS

Table of Contents

1. Land Use................................................................................................................................................... G-1

1.1 Empire Corridor South ......................................................................................................................... G-1

1.2 Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch: 90/110 Study Area................................................................ G-7

1.3 Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch: 125 Study Area ................................................................... G-11

2. Population.............................................................................................................................................. G-19

2.1 Empire Corridor South ....................................................................................................................... G-19

2.2 Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch.............................................................................................. G-20

3. Employment........................................................................................................................................... G-21

3.1 Empire Corridor South ....................................................................................................................... G-21

3.2 Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch.............................................................................................. G-22

3.3 Business Districts ............................................................................................................................... G-22

4. Environmental Justice ............................................................................................................................ G-27

4.1 Empire Corridor South ....................................................................................................................... G-27

4.2 Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch: 90/110 Study Area.............................................................. G-28

4.3 Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch: 125 Study Area................................................................... G-30

5. Community Facilities.............................................................................................................................. G-31

6. Surface Waterbodies and Watercourses ............................................................................................... G-36

6.1 Empire Corridor South ....................................................................................................................... G-36

6.2 Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch: 90/110 Study Area.............................................................. G-41

6.3 Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch: 125 Study Area ................................................................... G-49

7. Navigable Waters................................................................................................................................... G-61

7.1 Empire Corridor South ....................................................................................................................... G-61

7.2 Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch: 90/110 Study Area.............................................................. G-61

7.3 Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch: 125 Study Area................................................................... G-62

8. Floodplains............................................................................................................................................. G-63

8.1 Empire Corridor South ....................................................................................................................... G-63

8.2 Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch: 90/110 Study Area.............................................................. G-64

8.3 Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch: 125 Study Area ................................................................... G-66

9. Wetlands................................................................................................................................................ G-68

9.1 Empire Corridor South ....................................................................................................................... G-68

9.2 Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch: 90/110 Study Area.............................................................. G-69

9.3 Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch: 125 Study Area................................................................... G-71

10. Aquifers.................................................................................................................................................. G-76

10.1 Empire Corridor South ....................................................................................................................... G-76

10.2 Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch: 90/110 Study Area ............................................................. G-76

10.3 Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch: 125 Study Area ................................................................... G-77

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page i 

New York State Department of Transportation 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Table of Contents 

11. Historic and Cultural Resources............................................................................................................. G-82

11.1 Archaeology ....................................................................................................................................... G-82

11.1.1 Historic Context ........................................................................................................................................ G-82

11.1.2 Methodology............................................................................................................................................. G-83

11.1.3 Direct APE: 90/110 Study Area ................................................................................................................. G-84

11.1.4 Direct APE: 125 Study Area ....................................................................................................................... G-84

11.2 Architectural Resources..................................................................................................................... G-86

11.2.1 Historic Context ........................................................................................................................................ G-86

11.2.2 Overview of APE........................................................................................................................................ G-87

11.2.3 Direct APE: 90/110 Study Area ................................................................................................................. G-87

11.2.4 Direct APE: 125 Study Area ....................................................................................................................... G-89

11.2.5 Indirect APE: 90/110 Study Area............................................................................................................... G-90

11.2.6 Indirect APE: 125 Study Area .................................................................................................................... G-92

12. Visual.................................................................................................................................................... G-107

12.1 Empire Corridor South ..................................................................................................................... G-107

12.2 Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch (90/110 Study Area/125 Study Area)................................. G-110

13. Farmlands............................................................................................................................................. G-117

13.1 Empire Corridor South ..................................................................................................................... G-117

13.2 Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch: 90/110 Study Area ........................................................... G-118

13.3 Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch: 125 Study Area ................................................................. G-119

14. Contaminated and Hazardous Material............................................................................................... G-127

14.1 Empire Corridor South ..................................................................................................................... G-127

14.2 Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch: 90/110 Study Area............................................................ G-128

14.3 Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch: 125 Study Area ................................................................. G-129

15. Additional Supporting Exhibits............................................................................................................. G-131

Page ii High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program 

New York State Department of Transportation 
List of Exhibits Tier 1 Draft EIS

List of Exhibits

Exhibit G-1—Land Cover Maps (3 of 3) ................................................................................................................. G-4

Exhibit G-2—Consistency Summary of State and County Master Plans ............................................................. G-15

Exhibit G-3—Community Facilities Maps (3 of 3)................................................................................................ G-33

Exhibit G-4—Empire Corridor South Surface Water Crossings (for both 90/110 and 125 Study Areas unless 

otherwise noted)................................................................................................................................................. G-39

Exhibit G-5—Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch Surface Water Crossings in the 90/110 Study Area ......... G-45

Exhibit G-6—Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch Surface Water Crossings in the 125 Study Area............... G-53

Exhibit G-7—Surface Waters/Floodplains Maps (3 of 3)..................................................................................... G-58

Exhibit G-8—Wetlands Maps (3 of 3).................................................................................................................. G-73

Exhibit G-9—Aquifers Maps (3 of 3).................................................................................................................... G-79

Exhibit G-10—Catalog of Previously Identified Archaeological Sites within the Direct APEs ............................. G-85

Exhibit G-11—Architectural Resources within the Indirect APEs........................................................................ G-92

Exhibit G-12—S/NR-Listed Individual Resources within the APEs ...................................................................... G-94

Exhibit G-13—S/NR-Eligible Individual Resources within the APEs .................................................................... G-98

Exhibit G-14—Historical and Cultural Maps (3 of 3) ......................................................................................... G-102

Exhibit G-15—Counties, Cities/Towns and Villages within the APEs ................................................................ G-105

Exhibit G-16—Farmland Maps (3 of 3).............................................................................................................. G-121

Exhibit G-17—Cropland Maps (3 of 3) .............................................................................................................. G-124

Exhibit G-18 —Coastal Resources Maps (3 of 3)............................................................................................... G-133

Exhibit G-19—Federally & State Endangered-Threatened Species Occurrences in the 90/110 Study Area..... G-136

Exhibit G-20—Federally and State Endangered-Threatened Species Occurrences in the 125 Study Area....... G-139

Exhibit G-21—Essential Fish Habitat in the Study Area .................................................................................... G-142

Exhibit G-22—Parks and Recreation Maps (3 of 3) ........................................................................................... G-144

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page iii

New York State Department of Transportation 
This page intentionally left blank. 
Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation Tier 1 Draft EIS

1. Land Use

1.1 Empire Corridor South

The Empire Corridor South segment, from New York City to Rensselaer, extends 142 miles and in 

many locations closely follows the east bank of the Hudson River. The study area extends through 

Manhattan (New York County) and the Bronx (Bronx County). This program segment also includes 

the study area counties of Westchester County, Putnam County, Dutchess County, Columbia County, 

and Rensselaer County. The location of the rail line in close proximity to the river’s edge in many 

locations is reflected by the predominance of surface waters, wetlands, and undeveloped forest 

area in many locations where the river bank is undeveloped or consists of parkland. 

The most urbanized segment of the study area extends roughly 10 miles through New York City 

from Pennsylvania Station (southern terminus of the Empire Corridor) in Manhattan to the 

northern border of the city of Yonkers in Westchester County. In New York City, the county 

boundaries coincide with the boroughs. In Manhattan (New York County), the Empire Corridor 

rail line runs under and along the west side of Manhattan Island parallel to the Hudson River. Penn 

Station is situated under the Pennsylvania Plaza/Madison Square Garden complex between Seventh 

Avenue and Eighth Avenue and 31st and 33rd Streets in midtown Manhattan. The high-density 

development around Pennsylvania Station are primarily mixed urban uses including hotels, retail, 

restaurants, office buildings, retail and other services. Future plans being overseen by various 

public entities are to create an annex to Penn Station in the James Farley Post Office Building across 

Eighth Avenue and provide an aboveground entrance, as part of the Moynihan Station 

improvements. The Empire Corridor travels west underground from Pennsylvania Station, under 

the Hudson Yards and then continues north under Hell’s Kitchen (crossing the Lincoln Tunnel) and 

the west side of Midtown Manhattan. This underground segment of railroad crosses over to Route 

9A along the Hudson River (known as the West Side Highway, or Joe DiMaggio Highway, becoming 

Henry Hudson Parkway at 72nd Street) west of Central Park. The railroad eventually surfaces to 

street level in Riverside Park, east of the Henry Hudson Parkway and west of Riverside Avenue 

north of 123rd Street and crosses into the Bronx over the Harlem River Bridge. The Empire 

Corridor and the Metro-North Railroad Hudson Line commuter rail meet in the Spuyten Duyvil 

section of the Bronx. In Manhattan, approximately 63 percent of the land cover in the study area is 

characterized as mixed urban, which includes high density retail, office, and residential uses. 

Transportation and utilities comprise 19 percent of the land cover in Manhattan, which includes 

Route 9A, and commercial services total 13 percent of the total land area. 

In Bronx County, 2.6 miles of the rail line closely borders the east side of the Hudson River, and 

surface waters account for roughly 50 percent of the land cover in the study area. Approximately 

30 percent of the land cover within the study area is classified as mixed urban uses or commercial 

services, and residential uses account for 17 percent of the land cover. Riverdale is the major urban 

center of the Bronx, primarily consisting of medium to high density residential uses and retail, 

commercial, and other services. Riverdale Park is the major recreational and natural area along the 

rail corridor in Bronx County. 

The Hudson Valley Region north from New York City include Westchester, Putnam, Dutchess, and 

Columbia counties, which extend along the east side of the Hudson River. Approximately 31.5 miles 

of the railroad extends through Westchester County. The study area in Westchester County 

includes residential (16%), commercial/industrial (20%), and mixed urban (10%) uses, with 

transportation/utilities accounting for another 8 percent. Surface waters, principally the Hudson 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page G-1 

New York State Department of Transportation 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation 

River, and forested areas account for approximately 46 percent of the land cover in the Westchester 

County study area. The southern portion of Westchester County contains moderate to high-density 

residential areas with mixed urban uses that occur predominantly in the more developed 

communities along the Hudson River from Yonkers north to Tarrytown, where the New York State 

Thruway (Interstate Routes 287/87) crosses the railroad at the Tappan Zee Bridge. The northern 

portion of Westchester County contains a higher proportion of forested areas with several 

developed areas near Peekskill and Croton-on-Hudson abutting the Hudson River. 

Within Westchester County, the city of Yonkers consists of mixed urban (30%), commercial or 

industrial (53%), or transportation/utilities (17%) in the study area. The Yonkers Amtrak/MetroNorth Railroad Station, 14 miles north of Penn Station, serves the downtown area of Yonkers and 

was renovated by the Metro-North Railroad in 2004. The adjoining land uses include the New York 

Department of Motor Vehicles and the Yonkers Public Library to the northeast and the U.S. Post 

Office to the southeast. The land uses around the station include the Science Barge docked on the 

Hudson River, a floating science museum and working urban farm, on the west side of the tracks 

and restaurants, shopping and residential complexes and transportation uses, and associated 

parking facilities. 

in Westchester County, the land uses around the Croton-Harmon Station, 22 miles to the north of 

Yonkers Station, include Croton Point County Park on a peninsula in the Hudson River to the 

southwest of the station, a rail layover facility on the west side of the tracks, and a residential 

complex and marina to the west (on the other side of the layover facility) along the Hudson River. 

To the east of the station, a large wetland area and Paradise Island County Park are situated on the 

southeast and areas east of the station include a grocery store, Goodwill Industries, a health club, 

and other services (gas station and restaurants) and residential neighborhoods. 

In Putnam County, the 600-foot-wide land use study area includes increasingly rural or 

undeveloped areas. In the study area in Putnam County, land uses bordering the 9.3-mile-long 

corridor are primarily natural areas. Forested, surface water bodies, and associated wetlands 

account for 98 percent of the total area. The incorporated village of Cold Spring is the only 

community that abuts the rail corridor and includes a mix of residential and commercial uses.

The land cover types in Dutchess County are primarily forested areas and surface waters, which 

account for 77 percent of the study area. Only 15 percent of the land area within the 45.6-mile-long 

study area in Dutchess County is in residential, industrial use, mixed urban use, or transportation. 

Agricultural, wetlands, and barren land comprise the remaining 8 percent of the study area. The 

Empire Corridor passes through several smaller communities including Beacon, Poughkeepsie, and 

Rhinebeck, which are located adjacent to the Hudson River. 

In Dutchess County, the city of Poughkeepsie is located in the Hudson Valley approximately midway 

between New York City and Albany. The city is bordered by the Hudson River to the west and the 

town of Poughkeepsie on the north, east and south. A majority of the land cover (59%) in the study 

area in the city of Poughkeepsie is characterized as either forested or surface water (the Hudson 

River). Within the central business district, the principal land uses include industrial, commercial, 

and mixed urban totaling approximately 23 percent of the corridor, with transportation/utilities 

totaling another 8 percent. Land uses around the Poughkeepsie Amtrak/Metro-North Railroad 

Station, 41 miles north of the Croton-Harmon Station, include several surface parking facilities for 

rail passengers and park users, a new residential condominium development, referred to as the 

Piano Factory, and the Mid-Hudson Children’s Museum to the north, and a waterfront park to the 

west along the Hudson River side of the railroad tracks. Approximately 1⁄4 mile to the north is the 

Page G-2 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation Tier 1 Draft EIS

Walkway over the Hudson State Park, a former rail bridge and associated interpretive uses, 

spanning the Hudson River. The east side of the tracks border NY Route 9, with low to medium 

density housing to the east of the highway and the station. 

Within Dutchess County, the Rhinecliff–Kingston Amtrak Station, 15 miles north of the 

Poughkeepsie Station, lies adjacent to the east bank of the Hudson River and is characterized by 

residential uses and the historic hamlet of Rhinecliff on it eastern side, within the town of Rhinecliff. 

Columbia County is predominantly rural in nature within 300 feet of the railroad, which extends 

29.5 miles through the county. The major land use classification is forested lands, which account 

for 50 percent of the study area. Nineteen percent (19%) of the corridor is developed, primarily 

residential and retail commercial uses, concentrated within the city of Hudson. Agricultural lands 

account for 19 percent of the study area. 

In Columbia County, the land uses adjacent to the Hudson Station, 26 miles north of the RhinecliffKingston Station, include a waterfront park and state boat ramp along the Hudson River on the west 

side of the track. To the east and south, the neighborhoods within the city of Hudson include the 

business district and residential properties. A non-profit theater (Stageworks) is located in close 

proximity to the station. 

Rensselaer County (along with Albany and Schenectady counties along the Empire Corridor West 

program segment) is part of the Capital District Region. Rensselaer County is primarily rural or 

undeveloped within 300 feet of the existing (90/110 Study Area) rail corridor, which extends 13.4 

miles through the county. In Rensselaer County, where the 125 Study Area would begin, it extends 

north to Albany-Rensselaer Station, doubles back on the Empire Corridor South for one mile, before 

turning east and crossing the Hudson River. The new 125 Study Area diverges from the existing 

railroad approximately 1.6 miles south of where the existing Empire Corridor West turns west (for 

a total of 13.5 rail miles in Rensselaer County). 

In the southern part of Rensselaer County, the major land cover types are primarily forested and 

agricultural. Forestlands comprise 36 percent (90/110 Study Area) to 38 percent (125 Study Area) 

of the study area in the county. Agricultural lands comprise 28 percent (90/110 Study Area) to 30

percent (125 Study Area) of the county’s land study area. The urban center of this county is the city 

of Rensselaer. The majority of the mix of urban uses including residential, commercial, industrial 

and transportation uses (30% for the 90/110 Study Area and 27% for the 125 Study Area) in the 

study area for the county are located within the city of Rensselaer. 

Within Rensselaer County in the city of Rensselaer, the Albany-Rensselaer Station is situated about 

1.5 miles south of downtown Albany. The land uses in the vicinity of the current station include 

several large surface parking facilities and medium-density detached single family housing located 

to the west and east of the station. Areas west of the train station also include commercial, 

institutional, and industrial uses, including New York State Adoptive Services, and several dining 

establishments. 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page G-3 

New York State Department of Transportation 
New York

New York

New Jersey

Hudson River

Yonkers

Poughkeepsie

New York Penn Station

§ ̈¦87 § ̈¦84

§ ̈¦287

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦280

§ ̈¦78

§ ̈¦95

§ ̈¦495

B e r g e n B e r g e n

E s s e x E s s e x

U n i o n U n i o n

P a s s a i c P a s s a i c

H u d s o n H u d s o n

M o r r i s M o r r i s

O r a n g e O r a n g e

U l s t e r U l s t e r

R o c k l a n d R o c k l a n d

D u t c h e s s D u t c h e s s

P u t n a m P u t n a m

W e s t c h e s t e r W e s t c h e s t e r

Q u e e n s Q u e e n s

B r o n x B r o n x

K i n g s K i n g s

N e w Y o r k N e w Y o r k

New York

Ramapo

Tuxedo

Cortlandt

Fishkill

Newburgh

Gardiner

Philipstown

Yorktown

Plattekill

Montgomery

La Grange

East Fishkill

Woodbury

Lloyd

Highlands

Kent

Cornwall

Greenburgh

New Windsor

Monroe

Stony Point

Wappinger

Haverstraw

Shawangunk

Mount Pleasant

Clarkstown

Putnam Valley

Orangetown

Yonkers

Blooming Grove

Chester

Poughkeepsie

Marlborough

Ossining

Hamptonburgh

New Castle

Somers

Crawford

New Rochelle

New Paltz

Beacon

Peekskill

Scarsdale

Rochester

Eastchester

Mount Vernon

Pelham

Beekman

North Hempstead

Wallkill

Copyright:© 2013 Esri

Hudson River

Hudson River

New York

Connecticut

Putnam

Acres

Hudson

Rhinecliff

Poughkeepsie

Albany-Rensselaer

§ ̈¦87

§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦787

§ ̈¦890

A l b a n y A l b a n y

D u t c h e s s D u t c h e s s

C o l u m b i a C o l u m b i a

U l s t e r U l s t e r

G r e e n e G r e e n e

R e n s s e l a e r R e n s s e l a e r

Cairo

Catskill

Ghent

Milan

Schodack

Saugerties

Colonie

Westerlo

Stanford

Lloyd

Esopus

Clinton

Gallatin

Guilderland

Coeymans

Washington

Ulster

Claverack

Bethlehem

Chatham

New Scotland

Red Hook

Athens

Berne

Taghkanic

Hyde Park

Greenville

Rhinebeck

Ancram

Coxsackie

Livingston

Nassau

New Baltimore

Hunter

Pine Plains

Dover

Brunswick

Knox

Union Vale La Grange

Albany

Kinderhook

Copake

Stuyvesant

Amenia

Pleasant Valley

New Paltz

Clermont

Greenport

Troy

East Greenbush

Stockport

Northeast

North Greenbush Poestenkill

Germantown

Woodstock

Kingston

Poughkeepsie

Durham

Princetown

Plattekill

Jewett

Hudson

Cohoes

Watervliet

Marbletown

Copyright:© 2013 Esri

PENNSYLVANIA

ONTARIO

(CANADA)

NEW YORK

6 5 4 3

1

2

KEY MAP

0 2.5 5 10

Miles

MAP 1 MAP 2

I Tier 1 EIS

High Speed Rail

Empire Corridor Program

Land Cover Map

Source: The United States Geological Survey (USGS)

National Mapping Program. 

Residential

Commercial Services

Industrial

Transportation/Utilities

Industrial and Commercial

Mixed Urban Land

Agricultural

Rangeland

Forest Land

Surface Water

Wetlands

Barren Land

Alternative 125 Corridor

Existing

Empire

Corridor

Amtrak Station

Alt. 125 as shown is a potential corridor used to analyze the potential operating characteristics, environmental impacts and cost for this speed (125 mph) threshold. *

*

Exhibit G-1
Hudson River

Amsterdam

Schenectady

Albany-Rensselaer

§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦88

§ ̈¦87

§ ̈¦787

§ ̈¦890

F u l t o n F u l t o n

O t s e g o O t s e g o

S a r a t o g a S a r a t o g a H e r k i m e r H e r k i m e r

A l b a n y A l b a n y

M o n t g o m e r y M o n t g o m e r y

S c h o h a r i e S c h o h a r i e

S c h e n e c t a d y S c h e n e c t a d y

R e n s s e l a e r R e n s s e l a e r

Root

Glen

Otsego

Knox

Colonie

Florida

Minden

Mayfield

Galway

Stark

Duanesburg

Greenfield

Glenville

Malta

Milton

Berne

Sharon

Warren

Palatine

Fairfield Caroga

Oppenheim

Seward

Perth

Hartwick

Carlisle

Ephratah

Wright

Mohawk

Wilton

Springfield

Stratford

Providence

Bleecker

Danube

Westford

Ballston

Salisbury

Columbia

Herkimer

Exeter

Richfield

Cobleskill

Roseboom

Decatur

Fulton Bethlehem

Newport

Johnstown

Middlefield

Guilderland

Clifton Park

Charleston

Charlton

Broadalbin

Canajoharie

Rotterdam

Manheim

Stillwater

Albany

Cherry Valley

Schuyler

Schoharie

Middleburgh

New Scotland

Amsterdam

German Flatts

Little Falls

Princetown

Richmondville

Worcester

Esperance

Saratoga Springs

Niskayuna

St Johnsville

Summit

Edinburg

Northampton

Schenectady

Waterford

Cohoes

Gloversville

Milford Maryland

Winfield

Copyright:© 2013 Esri

Oneida

Lake

Rome

Utica

Syracuse § ̈¦90

§ ̈¦81

§ ̈¦690

§ ̈¦481

§ ̈¦790

O n e i d a O n e i d a

O n o n d a g a O n o n d a g a

M a d i s o n M a d i s o n

O s w e g o O s w e g o

C a y u g a C a y u g a

H e r k i m e r H e r k i m e r

O t s e g o O t s e g o

C o r t l a n d C o r t l a n d

Vienna

Rome

Clay

Verona

Sullivan

Constantia

Niles

Pompey

Lee

Eaton

Cicero

Brookfield

Lysander

Fabius

Manlius

Nelson

Floyd

Onondaga Paris

Lenox

Trenton

Marcy

Tully

Vernon

Madison

Granby

Otisco

Elbridge

Fenner

La Fayette

Lebanon Hamilton

Kirkland

Camillus

Marshall

Schroeppel

Van Buren

Western

Russia

Lincoln

Litchfield

Plainfield

Hastings

Ira

Annsville

Camden

Sangerfield

Steuben

Scott

Cazenovia

De Witt

Spafford

Skaneateles

Frankfort

Deerfield

Marcellus

Augusta

Exeter

Schuyler

Utica

Oneida

Westmoreland

Winfield

Syracuse

Georgetown

Stockbridge

DeRuyter

Salina

Smithfield

West Monroe

Whitestown

Cuyler

Bridgewater

Volney

New Hartford

Cato

Owasco

Sennett

Geddes

Richfield

Remsen

Columbia

Palermo

Edmeston

Fulton

Sherrill

Amboy

Copyright:© 2013 Esri

PENNSYLVANIA

ONTARIO

(CANADA)

NEW YORK

6 5 4 3

1

2

KEY MAP

MAP 4

MAP 3

I 0 5 10 2.5

Miles

Tier 1 EIS

High Speed Rail

Empire Corridor Program

Land Cover Map

Source: The United States Geological Survey (USGS)

National Mapping Program. 

Existing 

Empire

Alternative 125 Corridor

Corridor

Residential

Commercial Services

Industrial

Transportation/Utilities

Industrial and Commercial

Mixed Urban Land

Agricultural

Rangeland

Forest Land

Surface Water

Wetlands

Barren Land

Amtrak Station

Alt. 125 as shown is a potential corridor used to analyze the potential operating characteristics, environmental impacts and cost for this speed (125 mph) threshold.

*

*

Exhibit G-1
Lake

Ontario

ra

s

0 ft of the existing rail.

Rochester

§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦390

§ ̈¦490 § ̈¦590 W a y n e W a y n e

M o n r o e M o n r o e

O n t a r i o O n t a r i o

C a y u g a C a y u g a

S e n e c a S e n e c a

L i v i n g s t o n L i v i n g s t o n

O s w e g o O s w e g o

Ira

Sodus

Galen

Phelps

Chili

Fayette

Cato

Tyre

Greece

Huron

Arcadia

Parma

Rose

Lima

Lyons

Butler

Victor

Sterling

Rush

Ogden

Wolcott

Hannibal

Riga

Mendon

Victory

York

Penfield

Seneca

Ontario

Macedon

Marion

Webster

Perinton Palmyra

Junius

Henrietta

Hopewell

Aurelius

Conquest

Sennett

Walworth

Caledonia

Rochester

Livonia Gorham

Fleming

Geneseo Bristol

Hamlin

Wheatland

Gates

Throop

Oswego

Niles

Avon

Canandaigua

Savannah

Farmington

Brutus

Manchester

Williamson

Owasco

Mentz

Pittsford

Waterloo

Springport

Seneca Falls

East Bloomfield

Richmond

Brighton

Montezuma

West Bloomfield

Geneva

Scipio

Clarkson

Auburn

Lysander

Irondequoit Sweden

East Rochester

Copyright:© 2013 Esri

Ontario

(Canada)

New York

(United States)

Lake

Erie

Lake

Ontario

Lake

Ontario

Buffalo-Depew

Niagara Falls

Buffalo-Exchange Street

§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦190 § ̈¦490

§ ̈¦290

E r i e E r i e

N i a g a r a N i a g a r a

G e n e s e e G e n e s e e

O r l e a n s O r l e a n s

W y o m i n g W y o m i n g

M o n r o e M o n r o e

L i v i n g s t o n L i v i n g s t o n

E r i e E r i e

York

Barre Royalton

Elba

Riga

Darien

Batavia

Wilson

Buffalo

Elma

Shelby

Amherst

Hartland

Attica

Clarence

Le Roy

Alabama

Alden

Hamlin

Newstead

Porter

Newfane

Byron

Ridgeway

Gaines

Bennington

Cambria

Pavilion

Murray

Bethany

Sweden

Pembroke

Marilla

Stafford

Lancaster

Bergen

Clarkson

Alexander

Clarendon

Carlton

Perry

Yates

Kendall

Ogden

Caledonia

Covington

Aurora Wales Sheldon Leicester

Somerset

Warsaw

Lockport

Lewiston Albion

Middlebury

Wheatfield Oakfield

Pendleton

Grand Island

Hamburg

Cheektowaga

Orchard Park

Tonawanda

West Seneca

Wheatland

Niagara Falls

Niagara

Orangeville

North Tonawanda

Lackawanna

Copyright:© 2013 Esri

PENNSYLVANIA

ONTARIO

(CANADA)

NEW YORK

6 5 4 3

1

2

KEY MAP

I 0 5 10 2.5

Miles

Tier 1 EIS

High Speed Rail

Empire Corridor Program

Land Cover Map

MAP 6

MAP 5

Source: The United States Geological Survey (USGS)

National Mapping Program. 

Alternative 125

Corridor

Residential

Commercial Services

Industrial

Transportation/Utilities

Industrial and Commercial

Mixed Urban Land

Agricultural

Rangeland

Forest Land

Surface Water

Wetlands

Barren Land

Amtrak Station Existing

Empire

Corridor

Alt. 125 as shown is a potential corridor used to analyze the potential operating characteristics, environmental impacts and cost for this speed (125 mph) threshold.

*

*

Exhibit G-1
Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation Tier 1 Draft EIS

1.2 Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch: 90/110 Study Area

The 322-mile-long Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch, with the exception of the metropolitan 

areas within and surrounding the major cities, has a rural agricultural character. The Empire 

Corridor West generally follows or parallels several major natural and man-made features, 

including the Mohawk River/New York Canal System and the New York State Thruway. The 

Niagara Branch turns north at Buffalo on Lake Erie, generally paralleling the Lake Erie shoreline 

and then extending north parallel to the Niagara River. 

In Rensselaer, the railroad crosses over the Hudson River at the Livingston Avenue Bridge and 

enters Albany. The rail bridge crosses approximately one mile north of the Albany-Rensselaer 

Station. Within Albany County, the city of Albany is located on the west bank of the Hudson River 

approximately 150 miles north of New York City. Within the city limits of Albany, the land area 

along the corridor consists of primarily industrial and transportation/utility uses totaling 57

percent of the corridor. Commercial establishments, including warehouses and vehicle garages 

occupy an additional 20 percent of the corridor.

In Albany County, the land cover in the study area along the 11.8-mile-long corridor consists of a 

mix of mixed urban land, residential, commercial and industrial uses, comprising 47 percent of the 

total. The majority of these urban, developed areas are located in the city of Albany. The rail line 

then generally parallels the New York State Thruway (Interstate Route 90), passing south of the 

Albany International Airport. Transportation and utilities account for another 10 percent of study 

area land cover. Proceeding west beyond the Albany city limits, the land uses in the study area 

assume a more rural character with pockets of industrial uses (26%) with the remaining classified 

as undeveloped or forested areas (38%) to the west and south of Albany County.

Approximately 14.7 miles of the rail corridor extends through Schenectady County, where land 

cover in the study area is a mix of developed areas, agricultural lands and forested areas. Fifty-five 

percent (55%) of the corridor contains developed uses, predominantly residential, while another 

43 percent consists of agricultural and forested areas. 

Within Schenectady County, the city of Schenectady is approximately 15 miles northwest of Albany. 

A majority of the land use consists of residential neighborhoods accounting for 66 percent of the 

total along the corridor. Twenty-six (26%) percent of the corridor is occupied by industrial and 

commercial development. 

Within Schenectady County, approximately 18 miles west of the Albany-Rensselaer Station, 

Schenectady Station is located in the heart of the downtown business district, surrounded by 

restaurants, theaters, and other commercial uses and services. The land uses surrounding the 

station consist of mixed urban uses, and the railroad crosses NY Route 5 immediately south of the 

station. Adjoining uses on Route 5 include the Empire State College of the State University of New 

York, a bank, and a U.S. Naval Reserve office. 

In the remainder of Schenectady County north of the city of Schenectady, the railroad corridor 

crosses the Mohawk River and generally follows the river and, further to the southwest, the New 

York State Thruway (I-90), passing north of the Mohawk Valley Airport.

The railroad closely follows both the Erie Canal and the New York State Thruway (I-90) where it 

extends 40.3 miles through primarily rural areas of Montgomery County. The land cover types in 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page G-7 

New York State Department of Transportation 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation 

Montgomery County are primarily forested, rangeland, or agricultural lands totaling 68% of the 

study corridor. Another 22 percent of the land area is classified as residential, commercial, or 

mixed urban lands, with much of this development centered on Amsterdam, the largest city along 

the railroad corridor in Montgomery County.

In Montgomery County, the Amsterdam Amtrak Station is located in the western outskirts of the 

city of Amsterdam, 18 miles west of Schenectady Station, on the north bank of the Mohawk River 

just south of Route 5/Route 67. A mixed residential and commercial neighborhood surrounds the 

station, and includes several medical offices, St. Mary’s Hospital, a church, and other services.

The railroad extends 25.3 miles through rural areas of Herkimer County. The railroad follows the 

Mohawk River and the New York State Thruway (to the south of the river) on the eastern half of 

Herkimer County, and, west of Herkimer, follows the Erie Canal and the New York State Thruway 

(to the north of the canal). Surface waters account for 7 percent of total land area. The major land 

use types include agricultural lands and rangeland (40%) and forested areas (29%), totaling 69

percent of the corridor. The developed lands, principally residential and commercial land uses, are 

clustered in the communities of Little Falls and Herkimer. 

Proceeding west, the Empire Corridor extends 28.6 miles through Oneida County, paralleling the 

Erie Canal between Utica and Rome. Wetlands account for 16 percent of the land cover. The 

railroad also parallels portions of the New York State Thruway (I-90) and sections of NY Routes 69, 

26, and 365, and transportation accounts for 10 percent of the land cover. The county is primarily 

rural; agricultural lands, rangeland, and forest constitute 59 percent of the land cover in the 600-

foot-wide study area. Residential, commercial, and industrial land use accounts for 15 percent of 

the land cover in the study area and is clustered around the urbanized portions of Utica and Rome. 

Within Oneida County, the study area in the city of Utica consists primarily of 

transportation/utilities (48%) and commercial and industrial development (43%) totaling 91

percent. The Utica Boehlert Transportation Center, located 60 miles west of Amsterdam Station, is 

surrounded on the west, south, and east by commercial and industrial uses, with a few government 

buildings. The station adjoins the Children’s Museum of History and Science on the west. The 

northwest side of the station adjoins the Genesee Street overpass, and industrial areas are north of 

the railroad tracks.

Within Oneida County, the Amtrak Rome Station is located 13 miles west of the Utica Station, 

immediately south of the Erie Canal. The area around and south of the station includes commercial 

services and sparsely developed, agricultural areas. The station is immediately east of a bridge 

carrying NY Routes 26, 49, and 69 over the canal and railroad. To the north of the canal are more 

densely developed, industrialized areas of Rome, including the Rome Industrial Park.

The Central New York Region encompasses the counties of Madison, Cayuga, and Onondaga. The 

railroad extends 13.8 miles through rural Madison County, generally paralleling the Old Erie Canal

and the New York State Thruway (I-90). A majority of the land cover is rural in nature, with 91

percent of the study corridor classified as forest (50%), agricultural (26%), rangeland (11%), or 

wetlands or barren land (5%). A small percentage of the study area in the county (7%) consists of 

residential or commercial use. The railroad passes five miles south of Oneida Lake in Oswego 

County, part of the Finger Lakes.

The Finger Lakes Region is a regional tourism destination centered on the chain of lakes that 

includes two that are among the deepest in America (Cayuga and Seneca Lakes), includes the study 

Page G-8 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation Tier 1 Draft EIS

area counties of Onondaga, Cayuga, Wayne, and Monroe. The cities of Syracuse (Onondaga County) 

and Rochester (Monroe County) are major centers for employment, commerce and culture within 

this four-county region of New York State. 

The railroad extends 31.3 miles through Onondaga County, roughly paralleling the New York State 

Thruway to the south and passing south of the Syracuse Hancock International Airport and 

Onondaga Lake in the city of Syracuse. Roughly half of the land cover in the study area in the 

county consists of forestland (25%), agricultural (15%), wetlands (75%), and surface water or 

barren land (3%). Built-up lands, consisting of industrial (15%), transportation/utilities (13%), 

mixed urban land (13%), and commercial/residential (10%), are largely situated within the city of 

Syracuse, with small pockets on the communities of Minoa on the east and Jordan on the west. 

Within Onondaga County, most of the study area in the city of Syracuse is built up (94%), with only 

6 percent consisting of surface waters. Mixed urban uses accounts for 63 percent of the land cover, 

followed by transportation/utilities (18%), industrial (10%), and commercial (3%).

In Syracuse, Amtrak serves the William F. Walsh Regional Transportation Center, which opened in 

1999, and is located 41 miles west of the Rome Station. The station occupies the area on the west 

side of the grade-separated interchange of I-81 and NY Routes 370 and 298 at the southeast corner 

of Onondaga Lake. A regional shopping center (Carousel Mall) is southwest of the interchange and 

other retail, commercial, and industrial uses are south and east of the station. The northeast side 

includes MacArthur Stadium and areas to the north, on the opposite side of the tracks, include the 

ITT Technical Institute and residential neighborhoods. Wetlands, undeveloped/barren land, and 

commercial/industrial uses occupy the areas north of tracks and Ley Creek, which closely borders 

the northwest side of the tracks. West of the station and the I-81 Interchange area, the Onondaga 

Lake County Park is located along the lake shoreline.

West of the Syracuse Station, the railroad passes close by the State Fairgrounds, on the north, and 

Camillus Airport, on the north, and extends through largely rural agricultural areas. 

The railroad extends 11.5 miles through rural Cayuga County, which consists primarily of 

agricultural lands (77%), forestland (13%), and wetlands and surface waters (8%) in the study 

area. The railroad closely follows and parallels, to the south, the New York State Thruway (I-90) 

through the eastern half of the county, passing south of Whitford Airport in Weedsport, and crosses 

the Cayuga-Seneca Canal at the west end of the county. At the west end of the county, the railroad 

borders the Northern Montezuma Wetlands State Wildlife Management Area (WMA) and the 

Howland Island WMA.

The railroad extends 37.1 miles through rural Wayne County, which is 97 percent undeveloped in 

the study area, paralleling portions of the Erie Canal and NY Route 31. The land cover in the study 

area consists predominantly of agricultural land (61%), forestland (24%), wetlands (11%), and 

barren land (1%). The railroad crosses through the Northern Montezuma WMA and the 

Montezuma National Wildlife Refuge.

The railroad extends 30.9 miles through Monroe County, closely paralleling the Erie Canal and 

Route 31F on the easternmost part, then roughly paralleling I-490 around Rochester and 

continuing west through the county. This is reflected in land cover totals for the study area, with 4

percent wetlands and 6 percent transportation/utilities. The predominant land use in the study 

area in Monroe County is agricultural (37%), with 6 percent forested lands. The built-up areas 

(44%) are centered on Rochester and the outlying communities of East Rochester, Fairport, and 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page G-9 

New York State Department of Transportation 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation 

Gates. Developed areas in the study area consist of commercial and industrial uses (27%), 

residential uses (10%), and mixed urban land (7%). The railroad in Rochester extends within 

roughly five miles of Lake Ontario and within two miles of Irondequoit Bay on the lake. West of the 

city center of Rochester, the railroad passes north of the Greater Rochester International Airport, 

with access provided off I-390. 

Within Monroe County, the city of Rochester in the study area is largely built up, with 79 percent

consisting of industrial (44%), commercial (34%), and mixed urban land. Transportation/utilities 

accounts for 21 percent of land cover within 300 feet of the centerline of the railroad. 

The Amtrak Rochester Station, located 79 miles east of the Syracuse Regional Transportation 

Center, is situated in the heart of the downtown area, just east of the I-490 Inner Loop crossing over 

the Genesee River. Access to the station from I-490 is provided by North Clinton Avenue. A new 

multimodal transit center is planned by the City of Rochester and Amtrak. The area south of the 

station and between the railroad tracks and the Inner Loop is heavily industrialized, with 

commercial uses, restaurants, heavy industry, and government uses (Judicial Process Commission). 

Directly north of the station, on the opposite side of the railroad tracks, are residential 

neighborhoods that are flanked by heavy industry and businesses on both the west/river side and 

the east, with a school within a half-mile northeast of the station.

The railroad extends 30 miles through rural Genesee County, closely following and paralleling NY 

Route 33, which generally parallels the New York State Thruway (I-90). The study area is 

predominantly agricultural, which comprise 84 percent of the land cover, with forest, wetlands, and 

surface waters comprising 8 percent. Developed lands comprise 9 percent of the study area in the 

county, including residential (5%), mixed urban uses (2%), and industrial and commercial uses. 

The built-up areas are clustered in the city of Batavia, at the geographic center of the county where 

many of the major highways converge, and the railroad extends south of the Genesee County 

Airport. 

The Buffalo-Niagara region includes the counties of Erie (and the city of Buffalo) and Niagara (and 

the city of Niagara Falls). The railroad extends 32.7 miles through Erie County. The eastern 

segment follows NY Route 33, then NY Route 130 to the city of Buffalo, a distance of 20 miles. The 

railroad alignment turns north to follow the Lake Erie shoreline and then follows Route 265 north, 

roughly parallel to the Niagara River, a distance of 12.7 miles. The eastern 10 miles of the study 

area is predominantly undeveloped (33%), comprised of agricultural lands (27%) and forest (6%). 

The remainder of the study area in the county is primarily developed (65%) coinciding with 

development in and surrounding the village of Depew and town of Cheektowaga on the eastern 

outskirts of Buffalo, the city of Buffalo, and, to the north, Tonawanda near the Niagara County 

border. 

Within Erie County, the city of Buffalo is entirely urbanized within the study area, with 53 percent

industrial uses, 24 percent commercial services, and 16 percent transportation/utilities. Two 

stations in Buffalo provide Amtrak service, the Buffalo-Depew Station, on the eastern outskirts of 

Buffalo, 61 miles west of the Rochester station, and the Buffalo-Exchange Street Station, 6 miles 

further west in downtown Buffalo.

Within Erie County, the Buffalo-Depew Station is located in the village of Depew, which is east of the 

town of Cheektowaga, the second largest suburb of Buffalo. The station is situated in a 

warehouse/industrial area located between Walden Avenue and Broadway (NY Route 130), which 

parallels the railroad, just west of Dick Road. The area immediately to the east consists of 

Page G-10 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation Tier 1 Draft EIS

landlocked undeveloped land and wetlands between two railroad lines. Areas surrounding the 

station and tracks are industrial and commercial, with a variety of services and large businesses 

and warehouses in this industrialized zone. North and east of the industrial zone are residential 

neighborhoods along and adjoining Scajaquada Creek, which parallels the railroad. South of NY 

Route 130 is undeveloped lands and wetlands along Cayuga Creek, and a large gravel pit/mining 

operation is located to the southwest. The station is approximately 1 1⁄2 miles south of the BuffaloNiagara International Airport, with access from the station provided by Dick Road.

Within Erie County, the Buffalo-Exchange Street Station is located in the heart of downtown Buffalo, 

within the northwest quadrant of the I-190/NY Route 16 Interchange, which is directly east of the I190/NY Route 5 Interchange. The station is situated south of Exchange Street adjoining the 

interchange ramps, and is directly south of a parking garage and the Coca Cola Field baseball 

stadium. To the northwest are the One HSBC Center, the Canadian Consulate and the BuffaloNiagara Visitor Center. Immediately south of I-190 and the station are offices for the Associated 

Press and a Disability Benefits office, and the two blocks to the south are occupied by parking lots 

and the HSBC Arena and Ira G. Ross Aerospace Museum. To the east, on the opposite side of two 

sets of ramps for NY Route 16 and Carroll Street/Center Street/Elm Street are businesses, 

government offices, and the Buffalo Transportation Museum. To the west are the site of the former 

Buffalo Memorial Auditorium and elevated ramps for the I-190/NY Route 5 Interchange. On the 

other side of this interchange and south of the HSBC Arena is the Buffalo River waterfront, which 

outlets into Lake Erie to the northwest. 

The railroad extends 14.4 miles through Niagara County, to the north of Erie County. The railroad 

follows the shoreline of the Niagara River, then extends north towards the Niagara Falls 

International Airport and turns west north of the airport to the western terminus of the Empire 

Corridor at Niagara Falls. Approximately half of the land cover in the study area is undeveloped, 

with agricultural uses and undeveloped land (50%) predominating in the stretch between the city 

of North Tonawanda, on the south end of the county, and the city of Niagara Falls on the northwest. 

Remaining land uses that predominate in the two cities on either end of the county consist of 

commercial and industrial uses (19%), residential development (12%), transportation/utilities 

(11%), and mixed urban land (9%). 

Within Niagara County, the Amtrak Niagara Falls Station is located 23 miles north of the BuffaloExchange Street Station at the northern terminus of the railroad on the east side of NY Route 61 

that crosses south over the railroad south of the station. Lockport Road parallels the railroad to the 

north, and Seneca Avenue parallels the railroad to the south. These two streets bracket a primarily 

industrial and commercial zone surrounding the station, with residential uses predominating on 

the opposing sides of the streets. Adjoining uses surrounding the station include an automotive 

repair shop, ambulance service, restaurant, and hardware store.

1.3 Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch: 125 Study Area

The 125 Study Area, extending 308 miles from the Rensselaer County line to Niagara Falls, takes a 

more direct route than Empire Corridor West through rural and agricultural areas between 

Rensselaer County and Buffalo. The 125 Study Area bypasses several of the major metropolitan 

areas and existing stations along the Empire Corridor West, with the exception of two 16-mile 

sections roughly centered on the Syracuse and Rochester metropolitan areas. 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page G-11

New York State Department of Transportation 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation 

The 125 Study Area bypasses the existing corridor over a distance of 126 miles between Rensselaer 

County and a point 8.5 miles east of the Syracuse Station. The 125 Study Area extends south of the 

existing corridor (by approximately 1.6 miles on the existing railroad along the Hudson River up to 

14 miles at Amsterdam Station) to bypass the cities and Amtrak Stations in Schenectady, 

Amsterdam, Utica, and Rome. West of the Syracuse area, the 125 Study Area bypasses, and extends 

up to 7.5 miles north of, the Empire Corridor West over a distance of 62 miles, before merging again 

with the existing rail corridor east of Rochester. West of Rochester, the 125 Study Area bypasses, 

and extends up to 7 miles north of, the existing corridor over a distance of 51 miles, before 

rejoining the existing rail corridor at a point 5 miles east of Buffalo-Depew Station in Buffalo. 

Within the study area in Albany County, the city of Albany, along the west bank of the Hudson 

River, is primarily urban. The 125 Study Area crosses the Hudson River to closely parallel I-787 

and, further west, I-87 (New York State Thruway), in the interchange area, continuing west along 

the median of the New York State Thruway (I-87/I-90) through the city. This is reflected in the 

transportation/utility uses totals for the city’s land cover, which accounts for 55 percent of the 600-

foot study area. The remainder of the study area consists of residential, commercial, and industrial 

uses (23%), and forestland, barren land, and surface water (21%). On the western end of the city 

and continuing west of the city, the New York State Thruway and rail corridor adjoin the Albany 

Pine Bush Preserve, a state unique area. 

The 125 Study Area extends through 14 miles of Albany County, continuing to follow the median of 

the New York State Thruway (I-87/I-90) through the remainder of the county. This is reflected in 

the predominance of transportation/utilities (66%) within the 600-foot-wide study area. The 

remainder of the study area in the county consists of 18 percent undeveloped areas (forest, 

agricultural, barren land, or water), and 16 percent developed areas, of which residential accounts 

for 10 percent. 

The 125 Study Area extends a total distance of 17 miles through Schenectady County, bypassing 

the city of Schenectady and the existing Schenectady Station, located 3.3 miles to the north. The 

125 Study Area continues along the New York State Thruway (I-90) a distance of approximately 4 

miles into Schenectady County to the junction with I-88. This portion of the corridor accounts for 

the transportation utilities (10%), residential (7%), and commercial (4%) totals in the county. The 

majority of land cover in the county consists primarily of agricultural lands (51%) and 

forestlands/rangeland (28%), which accounts for land cover along the remainder of the corridor. 

The 125 Study Area passes north of the Duanesburg Airport, then closely parallels U.S. Route 20 

along the western 5 miles of the county. 

The 125 Study Area extends 6.5 miles through Schoharie County, closely paralleling U.S. Route 20 

through the eastern half. The 600-foot-wide study area in the county is primarily agricultural 

(47%) or forestland (41%), with mixed urban uses (12%) located in Esperance and Sloansville. 

The 125 Study Area extends 21.3 miles through the southern portion of Montgomery County, 

through predominantly agricultural (71%) and forested (25%) lands. The remaining 4 percent of 

the county land cover within 300 feet consists of wetlands. The 125 Study Area bypasses the city of 

Amsterdam and Amtrak Amsterdam Station, located approximately 15 miles to the northeast.

The 125 mph extends 25.3 miles through the southern portion of Herkimer County, roughly 

paralleling Route 168 on the eastern half of the county and extending north of the FrankfortHighland Airport on the west end of the county. The study area in Herkimer County is 

predominantly undeveloped (97%), consisting large of forestland (52%) and farmland or rangeland 

Page G-12 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation Tier 1 Draft EIS

(45%). Mixed urban/residential land comprises only 3 percent of the study area. This corridor 

largely bypasses development centered along the existing railroad, including the communities of 

Herkimer and Little Falls. 

The 125 Study Area extends 22 miles through Oneida County, extending approximately 4 miles 

south of the Utica Station and 7 miles south of the Rome Station. The study area is predominantly 

rural (94%), consisting of agricultural (58%), forestland (31%), and wetlands (6%). Mixed use and 

residential uses comprise 6 percent of the total land cover. 

The 125 Study Area extends 14.6 miles through Madison County, paralleling the existing rail 

corridor to the south. The corridor parallels Route 5 to the south through the eastern 2/3 of the 

county. The study area consists predominantly of agricultural lands (64%), with forestland, 

rangeland, and barren land comprising 29 percent. Mixed urban land, residential, and commercial 

uses comprise only 5 percent of the land cover in the study area. 

The 125 Study Area extends a distance of 31.6 miles through Onondaga County, merging back with 

the existing railroad corridor over a distance of approximately 16 miles around the Syracuse 

Station. The 125 Study Area extends approximately 41⁄2 miles west on new alignment until it meets 

the existing Empire Corridor West, then follows the existing railroad approximately 91⁄4 miles to the 

Amtrak Syracuse Station at the northernmost city limit. West of the station, the 125 Study Area 

follows the existing railroad over a distance of 6.4 miles through the Syracuse area, before 

diverging at the Camillus Airport to the north of the existing railroad. 

Onondaga County study area includes agricultural lands (26%) and forestlands (26%), and other 

undeveloped areas (10%), such as wetlands, barren land, and water, located largely on the eastern 

and western ends of the county outside Syracuse. The Syracuse study area includes much of the 

developed areas (38%) in the county, including industrial (11%), transportation/utilities (10%), 

mixed urban (10%), commercial (5%), and residential (2%). The study area within the city of 

Syracuse includes 6 percent mixed urban land, 18 percent transportation/utilities, and 13 percent

industrial/commercial. The existing rail corridor adjoins the southern edge of Onondaga Lake and 

its adjoining county park and the State Fairgrounds. Surface waters account for 6 percent of the 

study area in the city. 

The 125 Study Area extends through Cayuga County over a distance of 11 miles, on a route north 

of the existing rail corridor that is largely undeveloped. The predominant land cover in the study 

area is agriculture (72%), with forestland (18%), wetlands (7%), and surface waters (1%) 

comprising 26 percent. Transportation/utilities accounts for 1 percent of the land cover. 

The 125 Study Area extends 35.5 miles through Wayne County, through areas that are 

predominantly rural. Agricultural uses comprise 66 percent of the 600-foot-wide study area, 

followed by forestland (23%), and wetlands (8%). The 125 Study Area extends within a half-mile 

north of the Montezuma National Wildlife Refuge. Developed land (mixed urban, residential, 

commercial, and industrial uses) comprises only 4 percent of the total study area.

In Monroe County, the 125 Study Area merges with the Empire Corridor West approximately three

miles west of the county line in Fairport. The 125 Study Area follows the existing railroad corridor 

approximately 101⁄4 miles to the Amtrak Rochester Station, extending north of the Greater 

Rochester International Airport, then diverges to the north approximately 5.7 miles west of the 

station. The 125 Study Area extends north of the Churchville County Park at the western county 

line. Agricultural uses (44%), forestland (11%), wetlands (3%), and barren land (1%) in the study 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page G-13

New York State Department of Transportation 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation 

area are located primarily outside the Rochester city limits. Residential uses and 

transportation/utilities, and mixed urban land account for 22 percent of the study area. The 

majority of commercial and industrial development, which comprises 20 percent of the study area, 

is centered on Rochester. Within the city limits, land uses in the study area consist of industrial 

development (39%), commercial services (30%), transportation/utilities (19%), residential (12%), 

and mixed urban uses (1%). 

The 125 Study Area extends 29.7 miles through Genesee County. The corridor extends north of 

the Genesee County Airport in the center of the county, turning to the southwest to parallel the New 

York State Thruway (I-90) on the west end of the county, extending within one mile south of the 

Tonawanda Indian Reservation. Genesee County is predominantly rural (96%) in the study area, 

with 84 percent agricultural, 6 percent wetlands, 5 percent forestland, and only 5 percent

residential, mixed urban, and industrial uses. 

In Erie County, the 125 Study Area extends approximately 111⁄2 miles before merging back with the 

Empire Corridor West, 4.6 miles east of the Buffalo-Depew Station. The 35.3 miles of the 125 Study 

Area in Erie County is predominantly urban, with the exception of the segment on the new 

alignment. This eastern segment accounts for the majority of the agricultural (37%) and forestland 

(9%) along the 125 Study Area in the county. Development within the village of Depew, 

Cheektowaga on the eastern outskirts of Buffalo, the city of Buffalo, and, to the north, Tonawanda 

near the Niagara County border accounts for the majority of development (47%) within the study 

area in the county, consisting of industrial (17%), residential (14%), commercial (10), and mixed 

urban/transportation (7%). Barren land, wetlands, and surface waters comprise 5 percent of the 

study area. Within the city of Buffalo, land cover in the study area is entirely built out, consisting of 

industrial development (37%), residential (30%), commercial (17%), transportation/utilities 

(11%), and mixed urban (5%). 

The 125 Study Area follows the Niagara Branch 14.4 miles through Niagara County, where land 

uses in the city of North Tonawanda on the south end and the city of Niagara Falls on the northwest 

are predominantly developed. Commercial and industrial uses account for 19 percent of the study 

area, followed by residential uses (12%), transportation/utilities (11%), and mixed urban land 

(9%). The undeveloped areas of the study area are located primarily between the two cities and 

consist of agricultural (46%) and barren land (4%). 

Page G-14 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation Tier 1 Draft EIS

Exhibit G-2—Consistency Summary of State and County Master Plans 

Master Plans Rail Transportation Objective

State Plans

New York State Rail Plan – Strategies for a New 

Age(2009) , New York State Department of 

Transportation (NYSDOT)

This Statewide Plan recommends the development of 

High Speed Rail and infrastructure improvements to 

the Empire Corridor from NYC Penn Station to its 

terminus at Niagara Falls Station. The overall objectives 

are to improve efficiency, lower service costs for the 

commuter, provide enhanced intercity passenger 

service and improve freight rail operations.

Multimodal Transportation Program Submission: 2009-

2014 (March 2008), New York State Department of 

Transportation (NYSDOT)

This program identified actions needed to improve 

rail service along each of its corridors including; 

service frequency, and improved on-time 

performance along its rail corridors.

Metropolitan Planning Organization/County Plans

New York and Bronx County

2010 - 2035 NYMTC Regional Transportation Plan – A 

Shared Vision for a Shared Future (2009)

New York Metropolitan Transportation Council

(NYMTC)

NYMTC supports upgrading intercity rail service 

along the Empire Corridor as part of its Strategic 

Regional Investment Options as noted in the Plan. 

The RTP supports and encourages the use of TOD 

development near existing and planned transit stations 

and hubs.

Westchester County

Westchester 2025/Plan Together: a partnership for 

Westchester’s future (May 2008, amended January 

2010)

This policy plan endorses increases in opportunities 

for transit service and regional mobility. No specific 

mention of HSR.

Putnam County

Vision 2010: Guiding Putnam into the Next Decade, 

Putnam County Division of Planning and 

Development, Vision 2010 Steering Committee 

(August 2003)

The plan supported to continue to work with MetroNorth to improve service and expand ridership along 

the Hudson Line. No mention of HSR. The plan also 

recommended continued participation in the New York 

Metropolitan Transportation Council (NYMTC). 

Dutchess County

Moving Dutchess: The Metropolitan Transportation 

Plan for Dutchess County (Adopted November 18, 2011)

Prepared by the Poughkeepsie- Dutchess County 

Transportation Council

The Plan recommends improving and expanding links 

between complementary transportation services 

including commuter rail. Focus new development in 

existing growth centers and along major transit 

corridors. 

One of the goals of the plan is to maintain the transit 

system in a state of good repair and increase ridership 

to reduce traffic and promote sustainable development.

Columbia County

City of Hudson Comprehensive Plan: Diversity Through 

Balance (April 2002)

One of the goals of the Plan is to improve and 

strengthen gateways to the City. One of these is to 

improve access and use of the existing Amtrak 

Station in Hudson.

Albany – Rensselaer Counties

Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy for the 

Capital District, prepared by Capital District 

Regional Planning Commission (September 2009)

The Plan calls for bringing transit options and 

residential areas closer together. Enhance and develop 

transit corridors and environments that support 

transit activities.

Schenectady County

Refer to discussion above under Albany-Rensselaer. 

The Capital District Transportation Authority (CDTA) 

has plans to build a replacement structure on the 

current site of the existing Schenectady Station. This 

new station would serve Amtrak and local transit 

service.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page G-15

New York State Department of Transportation 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation 

Exhibit G-2—Consistency Summary of State and County Master Plans 

Master Plans Rail Transportation Objective

Montgomery County

-City of Amsterdam Comprehensive Plan, Prepared by 

Saratoga Associates and the Montgomery County 

Department of Planning and Development (2003)

The County is currently preparing a Comprehensive 

Plan that will emphasize Smart Growth and TransitOriented Design for new developments. Although 

Montgomery County has not yet finalized a 

Comprehensive Plan, the City of Amsterdam has

developed a Comprehensive Plan. Amsterdam’s 

Comprehensive Plan recommends relocating the 

Amtrak Station to a more central location.

Herkimer - Oneida Counties

Herkimer-Oneida Counties Long Range Transportation 

Plan, Destinations 2010-2030 - prepared by the 

Herkimer-Oneida Counties Transportation Study

(HOCTS) (2009)

This Study recommends continuing efforts to upgrade 

the physical appearance and operations of Union Station 

in Utica. The HOCTS supports plans for High Speed 

Rail service and its potential impact on the two 

counties. The plan recommended public awareness of 

the use of rail as a means of travel.

Madison County

Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services 

Transportation Plan, Madison County, NY - prepared by 

Madison County Planning Department (May 2010)

Madison County has prepared a coordinated 

transportation plan for local transit services. There is 

no passenger rail service in Madison County, situated 

between Syracuse and Utica stations.

Onondaga County

Long Range Transportation Plan: Syracuse Metropolitan 

Planning Area - 2011 Update – Final Report, prepared 

by the Syracuse Metropolitan Transportation 

Council (July 2011)

The plan supports the use of High Speed Rail for 

improving passenger rail service in Central new York. 

Changes would be required at the William F. Walsh 

Regional Transportation Center in order to 

accommodate the increase in ridership on the high 

speed trains.

Cayuga County

-Cayuga County Comprehensive Plan (1997)

-Community Visioning Forum on Economic 

Development (July 29, 2009)

The County has been addressing an update of its 

Comprehensive County Plan through a series of 

visioning forums. The Forum on Economic 

Development indicated support for rail infrastructure 

and transportation throughout the County.

Wayne County

-Wayne County Master Plan (1997)

-Wayne County Comprehensive Plan Public Opinion 

Survey prepared by Wayne County Planning 

Department (2004)

A Public Opinion Survey performed in 2004 for an 

update of the Wayne County Comprehensive Plan 

established economic revitalization as a priority and 

pointed out need for railroad station in Lyons/the 

county. The County has been attempting to establish 

an Amtrak Station in the Village of Lyons which 

would service the Finger Lakes region. This station 

would be located between Rochester and Syracuse 

Stations. 

Genesee and Monroe Counties

-Long Range Transportation Plan for the Genesee –

Finger Lakes Region - prepared by the Genesee 

Transportation Council (June 2011)

-Genesee County Comprehensive Plan (1997)

-Genesee-Finger Lakes Region Coordinated Public 

Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan Update, 

prepared for the Genesee Transportation Council 

(August 2011)

The LRTP is supportive of introducing high speed rail 

service to the Empire Corridor for passenger service 

in the Finger Lakes region. 

The objective of the Coordinated Public Transit-Human 

Services Transportation Plan Update is to update local 

and regional transportation needs and continue to 

develop a more efficient, integrated and coordinated 

network of service. 

Page G-16 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation Tier 1 Draft EIS

Exhibit G-2—Consistency Summary of State and County Master Plans 

Master Plans Rail Transportation Objective

Erie and Niagara Counties

Framework for Regional Growth – Erie and Niagara 

Counties, New York, Final Report (October 2006) – 

prepared by Erie and Niagara Counties

2035 Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) Update 

(May 2010) for the Erie and Niagara Counties Region

Greater Buffalo-Niagara Regional Transportation 

Council 

The Regional Growth Plan and Long-Range Plan support

maintaining existing transportation system to 

support current and future development through 

reuse of existing facilities and encouraging 

concentration of employment and activity sites 

within transit corridors. The plan also promotes... 

improving muli-modal facilities and system 

connectivity to capitalize on growing international 

and trans-border trade opportunities. 

The City of Niagara Falls/NYSDOT is in the process of 

building a new multimodal facility at the U.S. 

Customhouse to replace the existing facility. 

Major Cities

City of New York

-PlaNYC 2030, Prepared by NY Metropolitan 

Transportation Council, Update April 2011

PlaNYC supports improvements to the Empire 

Corridor and the reintegration of transportation 

planning and land use development at the local and 

regional levels.

Use of TOD is emphasized as an appropriate use of land 

near train stations.

City of Poughkeepsie

- City of Poughkeepsie Comprehensive Plan (November 

1998)

Plan recommended the introduction of a Trolley 

Shuttle bus from Main Street to the Waterfront to 

improve access to the Metro-North train station. 

Metro-North is building a three story parking deck to 

accommodate parking needs at the station.

City of Albany

-Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy for 

the Capital District, prepared by the Capital District 

Regional Planning Commission (September 2009)

The Plan states that the Capital District should serve 

as the major transportation and distribution center 

in the Northeast. The City is currently seeking 

assistance to begin the preparation of its first 

Comprehensive Plan.

City of Schenectady

-City of Schenectady Comprehensive Plan 2020: 

Reinventing the City of Invention (Adopted March 

2008)

The Plan Implementation Program indicated that the 

City would be interested in improving the Amtrak 

Station facility to create a quality transportation 

center with efficient intermodal connections. 

City of Utica

Utica Master Plan (2010)

The Master Plan is under review and is expected to be 

adopted in June 2011. The only inference to a transit 

service was formation of a multimodal facility at the 

former Utica Railroad Station principally for bus and 

taxi. No mention of HSR or train station upgrades in the 

plan.

City of Rochester

Rochester Amtrak Station Revitalization Study (March 

2002) prepared for the Genesee Transportation Council.

The City of Rochester is proposing a new Intermodal 

Transit Center at the current Amtrak station. 

NYSDOT plans to initiate design and environmental 

studies in 2011. 

City of Syracuse

-City of Syracuse Comprehensive Plan 2025, January 

2005.

This Plan acknowledges the need for improving rail 

service in the Central New York Region. The current 

train facility, the William F. Walsh Regional 

Transportation Center, will need to make track 

configuration modifications in order to accommodate 

the introduction of High Speed Rail.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page G-17

New York State Department of Transportation 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation 

Exhibit G-2—Consistency Summary of State and County Master Plans 

Master Plans Rail Transportation Objective

City of Buffalo

-The Queen City in the 21st Century: the Buffalo 

Comprehensive Plan (February 7, 2006)

-2030 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) for the 

Buffalo-Niagara region, prepared by the Greater BuffaloNiagara Regional Transportion Council (GBNRTC) (June 

22, 2007). 2035 LRTP update May 2010

The Buffalo Plan promotes the implementation of key 

transportation projects in accordance with the 2030 

Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). The LRTP 

endorses the implementation of improvements to 

intercity transit service for commuters and passengers 

between major cities and their connections. Local 

economic development officials have expressed interest 

in considering relocation of the Buffalo-Depew Station 

closer to the downtown business district.

Page G-18 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation Tier 1 Draft EIS

2. Population

2.1 Empire Corridor South

The counties of New York, Bronx, Westchester, Rockland, Putnam, Orange, Dutchess, Ulster, 

Columbia, Greene, and Rensselaer, comprise the more urbanized and populous segment of the 

Empire Corridor. These counties had a 2010 population of 5,456,031 persons, comprising almost 

2/3 of the study area population. The total population is projected to grow by 779,322 persons or 

14.3 percent by the year 2035. Exhibit 4-5 in Chapter 4 of the Tier 1 Draft EIS compares the 2010 

and 2035 populations by county for the entire Empire Corridor.

New York City had a total population of 8,175,133 persons in 2010 based on the U.S. Census and is 

the most populous city in the state and nation. Manhattan (New York County), one of five 

boroughs of New York City (that are also coterminous with counties), is the most densely populated 

county in the country. Three of the five New York City boroughs (Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten 

Island) are outside the study area. The two study area counties of New York (Manhattan) and the 

Bronx have a combined 2010 population of 2,970,981 persons or 33.2 percent of the study area. 

These two counties (or boroughs) are projected to grow by 340,623 persons, or 11.5 percent, by 

the year 2035. Manhattan is forecasted to grow by 114,805 persons (or 7.24%) by 2035, and 

Bronx County is projected to grow by 225, 818 persons, an increase of 16.3 percent. 

Within the Hudson Valley north of New York City are the counties of Westchester, Rockland, 

Putnam, Orange, Dutchess, Ulster, Columbia, and Greene, situated along the east and west banks of 

the Hudson River. The resident population within these Hudson Valley counties totaled 2,325,621 

persons in 2010 or approximately 26.0 percent of the study area. 

Population is densest in the more urbanized areas closest to New York City. Westchester County

accounted for 949,113 persons, or 10.6 percent, in 2010 of the study area population. The largest 

city in this region is Yonkers in southern Westchester County and bordering Bronx County, with a 

2010 population of 195,976 persons. Rockland County accounted for 311,687 persons, or 3.5

percent of the study area population, and Orange County had 372,813 residents in 2010, or 4.16

percent of the study area total. 

The remaining five counties to the north in this portion of the Hudson Valley each represent 

between 0.55 percent (Greene County, with 49,221 residents) to 3.32 percent (Dutchess County 

with 297,488 persons) of the study area population. Poughkeepsie, located in Dutchess County, is 

the second largest city in this region with a 2010 population of approximately 32,700 persons. 

These eight counties in the Hudson Valley region are forecasted to experience the largest 

population growth rates outside of New York City, reflecting their attractiveness as bedroom 

communities within the New York City and Capital District commutersheds. The population of 

these eight counties is projected to increase by 439,745 persons or 18.9 percent by the year 2035, 

with the highest growth rates in the areas outlying New York City. The largest increases are 

expected in Orange County, which is forecasted to increase by 139,645 persons, or 37.5 percent, 

between 2010 and 2035. Westchester County is projected to increase by 103,702 persons in 2035, 

an increase of 10.9 percent. The largest percentage increase is forecasted for Putnam County, with 

an increase of 42.0 percent, or 41,936 persons. Rockland County is expected to experience an 

increase of 48,270 persons, or 15.5 percent, by 2035.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page G-19

New York State Department of Transportation 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation 

Population growth rates by 2035 generally decrease with increasing distance from the city. Growth 

projected by 2035 in Dutchess County is 20.7 percent (or 61,476 persons) and is 19.9 percent (or 

36,282 persons) in Ulster County. To the north, the populations of more rural areas within 

Columbia and Greene Counties are forecasted to grow by 7.3 percent (4,628 persons) and 7.7

percent (3,806 persons), respectively, by 2035. 

To the north, Rensselaer County is part of the Capital District Region. In 2010, the population of 

Rensselaer County totaled 159,429 persons or approximately 1.8 percent of the study area 

population and is forecasted to experience a drop in population of 1,046 persons (or -0.66%) by 

the year 2035. This forecasted drop in population reflects historic job losses in the region that have 

occurred dating back to 1960, with the decline of the manufacturing and industrial base. 

2.2 Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch

The population in the fourteen counties (Albany, Schenectady, Schoharie, Montgomery, Herkimer, 

Oneida, Madison, Onondaga, Cayuga, Wayne, Monroe, Genesee, Erie and Niagara) along Empire 

Corridor West/Niagara Branch totaled 3,495,494 persons in 2010. In contrast to the counties to 

the south, this region is forecasted to experience a loss in population, totaling 62,432 persons (or -

1.79) by 2035. This decline follows historic population losses precipitated by the decline of the 

region’s core manufacturing and industrial base. Schoharie County is projected to experience the 

largest future percentage increases in population in 2035, with a projected growth of 6.24 percent. 

 

Albany and Schenectady Counties are part of the Capital District, along with, Rensselaer County, 

and Saratoga County (outside the study area). Albany and Schenectady Counties compromise 

458,931 persons or 5.1 percent of the population in 2010. These counties are projected to lose 

approximately 4.5 percent of their total population by 2035 (21,076 persons). 

Schoharie County, along Alternative 125, accounted for 32,749 persons in 2010, or 0.37 percent of 

the study area population. Schoharie County is projected to increase in population by 2,044 

persons to 34,793 in 2035, an increase of 6.24 percent. 

To the west, the counties of Montgomery and Herkimer are predominantly rural. Combined, these 

two counties accounted for 1.3 percent of the 2010 study area population, and are forecasted to 

experience a population loss of 6,417 persons by 2035. The population of Montgomery County is 

expected to decline by 7.7 percent, and Herkimer County is projected to decrease by 4.0 percent. 

Oneida County had a population of 234,878 persons in 2010, and is forecasted to lose 5.2 percent

of its population in 2035. Utica is the largest city in the county, with a 2010 population of 62,235. 

Madison County, along with Onondaga and Cayuga Counties, is part of the Central Region of New 

York. Madison County, which is predominantly rural, comprises 0.8 percent of the 2010 study area 

population and is projected to lose 1.0 percent of its population by 2035.

Onondaga County, along with Cayuga, Wayne, and Monroe Counties, is part of the Finger Lakes 

District, a key tourism region in the state. Onondaga County had a 2010 population of 467,026 

persons in 2010 (5.2% of the study area population), and is projected to lose 3.6 percent of its 

population by 2035. The largest city in the county is Syracuse, with a 2010 population of 145,170 

persons.

Page G-20 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation Tier 1 Draft EIS

Cayuga and Wayne Counties are predominantly rural agricultural, and combined, comprised 1.9

percent of the study area population in 2010. This area is forecasted to gain 6.1 percent in 

population by 2035. 

Monroe County is one of the more populous counties, with 744,344 persons in 2010, or 8.3

percent of the study area population. The county is expected to lose 0.5 percent of its population by 

2035. The largest city in the county is Rochester, which had a population in 2010 of 210,565.

 

Genesee County is predominantly rural and comprised only 0.7 percent of the study area 

population in 2010. This county is projected to lose 4.3 percent of its population by 2035. 

At the western end of the study area are Erie and Niagara Counties, which combined constituted 

12.7 percent of the study area population in 2010 (a total of 1,135,509 persons). The largest city in 

Erie County is Buffalo, which had a 2010 population of 261,310. These counties are expected to 

experience a loss of population of 6,921 persons in 2035. Erie County is projected to lose 0.7

percent of its total population of 919,040 persons. Niagara County, which includes the last station 

stop at Niagara Falls, a major tourism destination, is expected to lose 0.3 percent of its total 

population of 216,469 persons by 2035. 

3. Employment

3.1 Empire Corridor South

The eleven counties along Empire Corridor South accounted for the majority of study area 

employment and provided 4,394,880 jobs in 2009. This labor market is projected to increase by 

16.8 percent by 2035, with an increase projected of 738,867 jobs. 

The two study area counties within New York City, New York (Manhattan Borough) and Bronx 

Counties accounted for almost half (47.7%) of 2009 study area employment, and this does not 

account for employment within the remainder of New York City. This labor market is projected to 

expand by 382,715 jobs (12.4%) by 2035. 2010 average annual employment stood at 8.0 percent in 

Manhattan, and Bronx County had the highest unemployment rate in the study area (12.8%). 

Westchester County was the second largest labor market, outside of Manhattan, comprising 

569,421 jobs in 2009. This job base is projected to expand to 24.7 percent by 2035 (140,631 jobs). 

2010 average annual unemployment rate in Westchester County stood at 7.2 percent. 

The remaining five counties close to New York City similarly provided a significant job base, with 

the smallest number of jobs provided in Putnam County (40,457 jobs in 2009). These five counties 

accounted for 607,866 jobs in 2009, or 9.4 percent of study area employment. This job base is 

projected to expand by 28.5 percent (an increase of 173,531 jobs) by 2035. These five counties had 

an average annual unemployment rate of 7.7 percent in 2010. 

The Hudson Valley rural counties to the north (Columbia and Greene Counties) included 52,342 

jobs in 2009, or 0.8 percent of the study area labor market. This labor market is expected to grow 

by 32 percent by 2035. In 2010, the average annual unemployment rate was 7.6 percent in 

Columbia County and 8.6 percent in Greene County. 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page G-21

New York State Department of Transportation 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation 

Rensselaer County, part of the Capital District Region, provided 1.1 percent of the study area 

employment in 2009 (71,143 jobs). This labor market is expected to grow by 25,195, or 35.4

percent, by 2035. The 2010 average annual unemployment rate was 7.8 percent in Rensselaer 

County.

3.2 Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch

The fourteen counties along Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch accounted for 2,086,895 jobs in 

2009. This labor market is forecasted to expand by 21.1 percent by 2035, with a projected increase 

of 440,770 jobs by 2035. 

The Capital District counties of Albany and Schenectady provided 5.35 percent of the study area 

employment in 2009 (415,675 jobs). This labor market is expected to grow by 69,044, or 19.9

percent by 2035. The 2010 average unemployment rate was 7.2 percent in Albany County and 7.7

percent in Schenectady County. Schoharie County comprised 0.20 percent of the study area 

labor market in 2010, or 12,720 jobs. This is projected to increase by 3,923 (or 30.84 %) by 2035.

The six rural, agricultural counties along this program segment of Montgomery, Herkimer, Madison, 

Cayuga, Wayne, and Genesee counties each accounted for between 22,857 jobs (Montgomery 

County) and 37,227 jobs (Wayne County) in 2009, for a total job base of 182,623. These counties 

are expected to add 32,492 jobs by 2035, an increase of 17.8 percent. Annual average 

unemployment in 2010 ranged from 7.6 percent in Genesee County to 9.8 percent in Montgomery 

County. 

Large employment numbers in the five remaining counties reflect the labor markets of the 

metropolitan areas of Utica-Rome (Oneida County), Syracuse (Onondaga County), Rochester 

(Monroe County), and Buffalo (Erie County)/Niagara Falls (Niagara County). 

Erie County had the largest employment base in 2009, with 552,085 jobs, followed by Monroe 

County (468,811 jobs), Onondaga County (301,733 jobs), Oneida County (134,560 jobs) and 

Niagara County (87,732 jobs). Together, these five counties accounted for 23.9 percent of the 

study area employment in 2009, and are forecasted to grow by 24.5 percent (or 1,880,332 jobs) by 

2035. The 2010 unemployment rate was highest in the western counties. Niagara County had the 

highest unemployment rate (9.1%), and the remaining counties had unemployment rates that 

ranged from 7.8 percent (Oneida County) to 8.2 percent (Erie County).

3.3 Business Districts

The eight major business districts along the study area are described below. All of these business 

districts are located directly along the Empire Corridor for the 90/110 Study Area, and all but 

Schenectady and Utica are located directly along the 125 Study Area. However, under Alternative 

125, the existing Amtrak service provided to all of these cities would remain the same.

New York City

New York City is the financial capital of the country, and along with London and Tokyo regarded as 

Page G-22 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation Tier 1 Draft EIS

a global financial center. Midtown Manhattan is the largest central business district in the U.S., and 

Lower Manhattan is the third largest. If the two study area counties, New York County (Manhattan) 

and Bronx County, were cities, they would each rank among the top 10 cities nationwide in terms of 

population. 

New York City is the center of one of the most populous metropolitan areas in the world. New York 

City is the center of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, New York-New JerseyPennsylvania Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), which had a population of 18,897,109 in the 

2010 U.S. Census. In 2007 to 2009, the gross metropolitan product of the New York metropolitan 

area (New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, New York-New Jersey-Pennsylvania MSA) was 

1.210 trillion dollars, larger than the combined gross domestic product of Pennsylvania and New 

Jersey, and larger than all but one state (California)1. Based on commuting patterns, a wider region 

is defined by the U.S. Census Bureau as the New York-Newark-Bridgeport, New York-New JerseyConnecticut-Pennsylvania Combined Statistical Area. One of every fifteen Americans lives within 

this wider region. 

New York City’s labor market totaled 4,722,352 in 2009, comprising 43.2 percent of New York 

State’s employment. The city is critical to the state’s economic vitality and is a driver of the national 

economy. In terms of economic recovery from the current recession, the State of New York had the 

second highest percentage increase of any state in the country in gross domestic product from 2009 

to 2010 (5.1% increase). 

New York City is also one of the wealthiest areas in the country. In 2009, the New York 

metropolitan area (MSA) ranked 10th in the country in per capita income ($52,037). Per capita 

income in New York County (Manhattan) was $105,554 in 2009, the third highest in the nation. 

Manhattan consistently ranks at the top or close to the top in county rankings of wages. 

Yonkers

Yonkers is part of the New York City metropolitan area and is the fourth largest city in the state. It 

is the largest city in Westchester County and is situated within 12 miles of midtown Manhattan and 

approximately 10 miles from the Westchester County seat in White Plains. The city borders are 

Bronx County on the south and the Hudson River on the west, the Bronx River on the east and the 

town of Greenburg to the north. The Yonkers central business district serves a largely local 

population with major retail activity and anchors, similar to the retail mall complexes in nearby 

White Plains. The downtown waterfront that has historically played an important role in the city’s 

economy, and the city is embarking on an ambitious, mixed-use waterfront revitalization program. 

Recent projects completed include the recent renovations of the four Metro-North Stations on the 

Hudson Line in Yonkers and the addition of the Ella Fitzgerald Park adjacent to the historic Yonkers 

Station on Main Street as a gateway to the new development. Projects underway include 

daylighting of the Saw Mill River. Other projects that have been approved include the Alexander 

1

/ Global Insight, U.S. Metro Economies: GMP—The Engines of America’s Growth, Gross Metropolitan Product with Housing 

Update. Prepared for the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the Council for the New American City, June 2008; Updated using 

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, “Gross Domestic Product by State/Metropolitan Area.” Accessed June 17, 2011. 

<http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?reqid=70&step=1&isuri=1&acrdn=1>, 

<http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?reqid=70&step=1&isuri=1&acrdn=2>. 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page G-23

New York State Department of Transportation 

 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation 

Street Master Plan and River Park Center2. The Alexander Street Master Plan, approved in May 

2009, envisions redeveloping 55 acres of the former industrial waterfront district as a vibrant 

mixed-use community including a public open space esplanade along the Hudson River. River Park 

Center, a 650 million dollar project approved in 2010, is a mixed-use residential, commercial, and 

entertainment complex to be constructed on an approximately 13 acre site in Yonkers Central 

Business District that will include a sports arena for minor league baseball. 

Poughkeepsie

Poughkeepsie is the seat of Dutchess County and the de facto center of the Hudson Valley. It is 

located midway between New York City and Albany, and is the largest principal city of the 

Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-Middletown Metropolitan Statistical Area, which encompasses all of 

Dutchess and Orange Counties. According to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, this 

metropolitan statistical area had a per capita income of $39,070 and a gross domestic product of 

21.499 billion dollars in 2009. Poughkeepsie is the mid-Hudson Valley’s regional governmental, 

educational, and cultural center. Poughkeepsie has become a civic center for federal, state, and 

county, government offices, and private industry includes a major campus of IBM.

The city has a Local Waterfront Revitalization Program in place that has included a series of 

completed and planned developments. Waterfront development plans have been developed in 

conjunction with the Metro-North Station and Walkway over the Hudson, a former railroad bridge 

that has been converted to a pedestrian path over the Hudson River. The walkway has attracted 

over 750,000 visitors since it opened in October 2009. 3 

New waterfront redevelopment on certain waterfront parcels is now required by the city to provide 

water-related or enhanced recreation use (such as public walkways) if feasible4. Waterfront plans 

include construction of an elevator to link the Walkway over the Hudson with the Poughkeepsie 

Station, a project that received federal stimulus funds.5 For one of the most ambitious projects, 

construction has started on the 14-acre former DeLaval site, which was abandoned for 40 years, on 

which the state financed remediation of on-site contamination6. The $25 million development plan 

calls for 100,000 square feet spread over four buildings of retail, restaurant and office space, along 

with a park, amphitheater for summer concerts and kayak/canoe launch. Another brownfields 

redevelopment project, totaling 100 million dollars, calls for 450 condominiums to be constructed 

on the 14-acre former Dutton Lumber site. 

Albany/Schenectady within the Capital District

The City of Albany is the State Capital and is the seat of Albany County. Albany is the heart of the 

Capital District that includes the neighboring city of Schenectady. The City of Schenectady is the 

2 / City of Yonkers Planning and Development, Downtown and Waterfront Development, “Projects in Progress.” Accessed 

June 19, 2011. <http://www.yonkersny.gov/index.aspx?page=87> 3 / Karen Angel, Daily News, “Walkway Over the Hudson: Poughkeepsie Footbridge Spurs Development and Retail 

Boom.” January 28, 2011. Accessed June 19, 2011. <http://www.walkway.org/dynamic.php?id=dailynews> 4

 /City of Poughkeepsie, Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan, Section III: State and Local Policies. Adopted 1998. 

Accessed June 19, 2011. <http://www.cityofpoughkeepsie.com/downloads?dl_cat=24> 5 / Mid-Hudson News, “Walkway, Stairs to enhance Walkway Over the Hudson.” September 3, 2010. Accessed June 20, 

2011. < http://www.walkway.org/dynamic.php?id=stairs> 6 / New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, “ More than 9 million earmarked for Brownfield Cleanup 

in Poughkeepsie.” November 2006. Accessed June 20, 2011. <http://www.dec.ny.gov/environmentdec/18823.html> 

Page G-24 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation Tier 1 Draft EIS

seat for Schenectady County. Both cities are part of the Albany-Schenectady-Troy Metropolitan 

Statistical Area, which had a total 2010 population of 870,716, the fourth largest in the state. 

According to the BEA, this MSA region had a per capita income in 2009 of $42,206, ranking 50th in 

the nation, and with gross domestic product of $39.597 billion. Based on commuting patterns, 

Albany and Schenectady are part of a larger area defined by the federal government as the AlbanySchenectady-Amsterdam, New York Combined Statistical Area. In terms of population, the cities of 

Albany and Schenectady were the 6th and 9th largest in the state, respectively. 

Albany and Schenectady have been a center for higher education as well as government and 

healthcare, for over a century, and the economies of both cities has historically been dependent on 

these three sectors. In Schenectady, two prominent businesses historically have been General 

Electric and American Locomotive Company. However, plant closings and relocation of GE’s 

manufacturing operations contributed to significant population declines in the late twentieth 

century that totaled a third of the population in Schenectady since 1950. Despite these setbacks, 

the economic health of the Capital Region has been bolstered by an expanding high technology 

sector, and Albany, in particular, is becoming a center for nanotechnology and the center of a 19-

county “Tech Valley” in eastern New York. 

Albany is home to major institutions of higher learning including the Albany Medical Center, Albany 

Law School, Albany College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, and University of Albany, State 

University of New York (aka SUNY Albany). According to the City of Albany’s website7, investments 

in the city, since 1994, the City of Albany's economic development strategy has been instrumental 

in bringing nearly 300 development projects to the City, totaling more than $6 billion in new 

investment. Recent developments include the Hudson River Way and Albany Riverfront Park 

(which include an amphitheater, floating docks, pedestrian bridge to downtown, and bikeways) 

south of the Livingston Avenue Bridge. Projects that are in the planning stages include the Albany 

Convention Center. 

With the exception of General Electric, the largest employers located in the city of Schenectady are 

government agencies and health care and education sector employers including Ellis Hospital, St. 

Clare’s Hospital, Schenectady County, Schenectady City School District, MVP Health Plan and Union 

College. According to the City of Schenectady’s web site, since 2004, more than $150 million in new 

investment has been made in the downtown, and upcoming projects include the completion of a 

new hotel, cinema, restaurants, high technology companies, a YMCA, cafes and loft housing in 

downtown. 

Utica

Utica is the seat of Oneida County and, along with the neighboring city of Rome, is the principal 

urban centers of the Utica-Rome Metropolitan Statistical Area. In 2010, the population of the UticaRome Metropolitan Statistical Area was 299,397. In 2009, according to the BEA, the per capita 

income of the Utica-Rome Metropolitan Statistical Area was $33,269, and the gross domestic 

product was $8.801 billion. 

Historically, the construction of the canals led to industrial growth in Utica as a center of the textile 

7 / City of Albany, Albany Local Development Corporation, “30th Anniversary, 2009 Annual Report of the Albany Local 

Development Corporation.” Accessed June 20, 2011. 

<http://www.albanyny.org/_files/ALDC%20Annual%20Report%2009.pdf> 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page G-25

New York State Department of Transportation 

 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation 

and later the tool and die industries. Both of these industries were substantially gone from the city 

by the late 1990’s. In the early to mid-twentieth century, radio manufacturing by General Electric 

was an important industry that also relocated, and eventually closed by the turn of the twenty-first 

century. With these significant losses, population had been steadily declining from a peak in 1950, 

but has rebounded in the past decade. Economic revitalization efforts have included introduction

and expansion of cultural venues.

Syracuse

Syracuse is the seat of Onondaga County and the fifth largest city in the state. It is the center of the 

Syracuse Metropolitan Statistical Area, which had a population in 2010 of 662,577, and is part of a 

larger Syracuse-Auburn, New York Combined Statistical Area. According to the BEA, in 2009 the 

Syracuse MSA had a per capita income of $36,833 and a gross domestic product of $26.352 billion. 

Syracuse is the economic and educational hub of Central New York. It has access to major 

convention sites in the downtown convention center complex and, west of the city, the Empire Expo 

Center (site of the annual Great New York State Fair). It is also home to Syracuse University, a 

major research institution; the State University of New York Upstate Medical University; the State 

University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry; and other smaller colleges 

and universities. 

Syracuse was the nation’s premier producer of salt until the early twentieth century, and during the 

Industrial Revolution became host to a diverse manufacturing industry. Declines in manufacturing 

in the 1970s occurred with plant closings and dislocations, reflected in population declines from the 

1950s through today. Today, Syracuse’s economy is centered on education and service industries, 

with few large employers, notably SUNY Upstate Medical Center and Syracuse University, along 

with a large number of smaller employers, all of which contribute to a more stable economy.

Rochester

Rochester is the third largest city and the second largest regional economy in New York. Rochester 

is the county seat for Monroe County. The 2010 population of the Rochester MSA was 1,054,323. 

In 2009, according to the BEA, the Rochester Metropolitan Statistical Area had a per capita income 

of $39,036, and a gross domestic product of $43,517 billion. Based on commuting patterns, a larger 

area has been defined by the federal government as the Rochester-Batavia-Seneca Falls, New York 

Combined Statistical Area. 

Rochester is an international center for higher learning and medical/technological development. It 

is the home of the University of Rochester, Rochester Institute of Technology, as well as companies 

such as Eastman Kodak, Bausch and Lomb, and Xerox. Because of the presence of imaging and 

optical science among the industries and universities, Rochester has become known as the capital 

of imaging. It is also corporate headquarters to a host of companies (including Eastman Kodak and 

Bausch and Lomb). 

 

Buffalo

Buffalo is the second most populous city in the state and the seat of Erie County. It is located on the 

eastern shore of Lake Erie and at the head of the Niagara River. It is the principal city of the 

Page G-26 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation Tier 1 Draft EIS

Buffalo-Niagara Falls Metropolitan Statistical Area, which had a 2010 population of 1,135,509. In 

2009, according to the BEA, the per capita income of the Buffalo-Niagara Falls MSA was $37,469, 

and the gross domestic product was $43.157 billion. A larger area, the Buffalo-Niagara-Cattaraugus 

Combined Statistical Area has also been defined by the federal government. In 2009, Buffalo was 

the third largest economy in the state, close behind Rochester.

Its location at the head of the Erie Canal made Buffalo one of the largest cities in the country by 

1950, as it became a major railroad hub and manufacturing and industrial center (steel, grain 

storage, automobile, and aircraft production). However, in the latter half of the twentieth century, 

the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway rerouted Great Lakes shipping and industrial declines 

resulted with relocation of heavy industry. Population declined by half from its peak in 1950, and 

has declined every decade since, although the rate of population losses may be stabilizing. 

Today, healthcare and education are major stalwarts of the economy, with expansion of the Buffalo 

Niagara Medical Center and the University of Buffalo contributing to the city’s economic growth. 

The economy has diversified beyond manufacturing, education, and healthcare to include serviceoriented industries and, technology. The retail industry has also been a growing sector of the 

economy. In an attempt to revitalize the economy, spending on development projects has escalated 

over the past decade and totaled $4 billion in 2007, compared to an average of $50 million over the 

prior 10 years. Projects in the planning stages include plans for expansion of the international 

crossing between Buffalo and Canada at the Peace Bridge. 

4. Environmental Justice

4.1 Empire Corridor South

The Empire Corridor South segment, from New York City to Rensselaer, extends 142 miles and in 

many locations closely follows the east bank of the Hudson River. All of the Build alternatives 

follow the existing Empire Corridor South for the majority of its length, deviating only in Rensselaer 

County, where the 125 Study Area splits off 1.6 miles south of where the existing Empire Corridor 

(the 90/110 Study Area) turns to the west. This program segment includes the study area counties 

of New York County (Manhattan Borough), Bronx County, Westchester County, Putnam County, 

Dutchess County, Columbia County, and Rensselaer County.

The most urbanized segment of the study area extends roughly 10 miles through New York City 

from Pennsylvania Station (the southern terminus of the Empire Corridor) in Manhattan north to 

the border of Yonkers in Westchester County. The study area extends through Manhattan (New 

York County) and the Bronx (Bronx County). Minority populations in New York County and Bronx 

County are the highest of any county in the Empire Corridor study area. Minority populations are 

42.6 percent for New York County and 72.1 percent for Bronx County, compared to 34.3 percent

for the state as a whole. However, only Bronx County exceeded the NYSDEC criterion (51.1%) for 

minority populations. Low-income populations are also the highest of all Empire Corridor counties, 

with 17.3 percent and 27.9 percent of persons living below the poverty level in New York County 

and Bronx County, respectively. Both counties have low-income populations above statewide 

averages (13.8%), although only Bronx County exceeded the applicable NYSDEC criterion of 23.59

percent. In addition, New York City itself, which includes three other counties/boroughs outside 

the program area, has a minority population of 56.0 percent and 19.1 percent of persons living 

below the poverty level. The minority population of the city exceeds the applicable NYSDEC 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page G-27

New York State Department of Transportation 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation 

(51.1%) for minority populations in an urban area.

As the alignment moves north, it enters the Hudson Valley Region consisting of Westchester, 

Putnam, Dutchess and Columbia Counties. The major populated center in Westchester County is

the city of Yonkers . Outside these populated centers, the area around the alignment is dominated 

by surface waters and forested land associated with the Hudson River. The minority population 

remains fairly high at 31.9 percent, which is below both the statewide averages and the NYSDEC 

criterion, and the low-income population drops to 7.9 percent. The city of Yonkers itself continues 

to have a high minority population (44.2%), but a lower low-income population (13.8%), both 

below the NYSDEC criterion. 

Entering Putnam County, the alignment passes through the village of Cold Springs; however, the 

area around the alignment is primarily natural areas consisting of forested land and surface waters. 

The minority population and low-income population in Putnam County are fairly low at 9.3 percent

and 6.6 percent, respectively. The low-income population in Putnam County is the lowest of any of 

the counties in the Empire Corridor study area.

In Dutchess County, the minority population increases to 19.9 percent while the low-income 

population remains relatively low at 8.0 percent. The increase in minority population in this 

County is likely due to the alignment passing through the major urban center of Poughkeepsie, 

which has a minority population of 49.1 percent and a low-income population of 23.9 percent. 

Although the minority population in Poughkeepsie is below the NYSDEC criterion, the low-income 

population is slightly above the 23.59 percent NYSDEC criterion. As the alignment enters Columbia 

County, it passes through less developed land and the minority population drops to 9.4 percent and 

the low-income population remains low at 9.5 percent. The major urban center located along the 

alignment in Columbia County is the city of Hudson.

Entering Rensselaer County, the alignment leaves the Hudson Valley Region and enters the Capitol 

District Region (made up of Rensselaer, Albany and Schenectady counties). Primarily, the area 

around the alignment is rural or residential in the south portion of this area; however, as the 

alignment approaches the city of Rensselaer in the north, the population density increases, and the 

suburbs of the Albany-Rensselaer area are located along the alignment. There is a slight increase in 

minority and low-income populations associated with this urban area. Rensselaer County has a 

minority population of 12.5 percent and a low-income population of 11.1 percent. 

4.2 Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch: 90/110 Study Area

The 322-mile long Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch 90/110 Study Area, with the exception of 

the metropolitan areas within and surrounding the major cities, has a distinctively more rural 

agricultural character than the segment to the south. 

As the railroad leaves Rensselaer County and enters Albany County, it crosses the Hudson River 

and passes through the city of Albany before heading northwest towards the city of Schenectady in 

Schenectady County. The area between these cities is generally more populated and developed 

and there is a slight increase in minority and low-income populations in these two counties. The 

minority population is 21.8 percent in Albany County and 20.4 percent in Schenectady County. The 

low-income population is 12.4 percent in Albany County and 10.8% in Schenectady County. The 

minority population is below the NYSDEC criterion (51.1%) at 43.0 percent in the city of Albany; 

Page G-28 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation Tier 1 Draft EIS

however, the low-income population is slightly above the 23.59 percent NYSDEC criterion at 25.3

percent. Both the minority and low-income populations in the city of Schenectady are below the 

NYSDEC criterion, 38.6 percent and 20.6 percent, respectively.

As the railroad leaves Schenectady County and the Capitol District Region and heads primarily 

west, it enters Montgomery County and then Herkimer County. These counties are generally 

more rural along the alignment, but pass through the populated centers of Amsterdam in 

Montgomery County and Little Falls and the city of Herkimer in Herkimer County. The minority 

population is 9.4 percent in Montgomery County and 3.4 percent in Herkimer County, the lowest of 

any county in the Empire Corridor study area. Low-income populations in Montgomery and 

Herkimer counties are 15.4 percent and 12.0 percent, respectively. The low-income population in 

Montgomery County is higher than the statewide average (13.8%), but is below the NYSDEC 

criterion (23.59%). 

The railroad enters Oneida County west of Herkimer County. Oneida County is primarily rural 

with urban populations centered on the city of Utica. There is a minority population of 12.9 percent

and a low-income population of 14.5 percent in Oneida County. This is a slight increase from the 

adjacent Herkimer County to the east. The minority population is below the NYSDEC criterion 

(51.1%) at 31.0 percent in the city of Utica; however, the low-income population is above the 23.59

percent NYSDEC criterion at 29.0 percent. 

Continuing west, the railroad enters the Central New York Region, which is made up of Madison, 

Onondaga and Cayuga counties. Madison County is generally rural and the minority and lowincome populations are generally low at 5.0 percent and 9.7 percent, respectively. As the railroad 

moves west into Onondaga County, it passes through the larger city of Syracuse. In this county the 

minority and low-income populations increase to 18.9 percent and 13.2 percent, respectively, likely 

due to the city of Syracuse. The minority population is below the NYSDEC criterion (51.1%), at 44.0

percent, in the city of Syracuse; however, the low-income population is above the 23.59 percent

NYSDEC criterion at 31.1. percent. Only a small segment of the railroad passes through the more 

rural County of Cayuga. The minority population is 7.5 percent and the low-income population is 

12.4 percent in Cayuga County.

The Finger Lakes Region consists of four counties: Onondaga, Cayuga (also included in the Central 

New York Region), Wayne and Monroe. Wayne County is similar to Cayuga County with a minority 

population of 7.1 percent and a low-income population of 11.0 percent. However, as the railroad 

enters Monroe County it passes through the major city of Rochester and its suburbs of East 

Rochester, Fairport and Gates. There is an increase in the minority population to 23.9 percent in 

Monroe County, whereas the low-income population stays relatively the same at 13.1 percent. Both 

the minority population and the low-income population are above the NYSDEC criterion in the city 

of Rochester, 56.3 percent and 30.4 percent, respectively.

The railroad leaves the Rochester area and enters Genesee County to the west where it transitions 

back to a more rural area. The minority population drops to 7.1 percent in Genesee County and the 

low-income population is 11.1 percent. Entering the Buffalo-Niagara region, the railroad passes 

through Erie and Niagara Counties and terminates in Niagara Falls. In Erie County, the rail 

corridor passes through the city of Buffalo. The minority population in Erie County increases to 

20.0 percent and the low-income population increases slightly to 13.9 percent. The percentage of 

persons at or below the poverty level is slightly above the statewide average of 13.8 percent, but is 

below the NYSDEC criterion of 23.59 percent. The minority population is below the NYSDEC 

criterion (51.1%), at 49.6 percent, in the city of Buffalo; however, the low-income population is 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page G-29

New York State Department of Transportation 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation 

above the 23.59 percent NYSDEC criterion at 29.6 percent. Niagara Falls is the main urban center in 

Niagara County and the terminus of the Empire Corridor. The minority population is 11.5 percent

and the low-income population is 12.3 percent in Niagara County.

4.3 Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch: 125 Study Area

Minority and low-income percentages are county-wide; therefore, the percentages for Albany, 

Schenectady, Montgomery, Herkimer, Oneida, Madison, Onondaga, Cayuga, Wayne, Monroe, 

Genesee, Erie, and Niagara counties remain the same as for the Empire Corridor West/Niagara 

Branch 90/110 Study Area. Although this alignment is generally either south or north of the

existing Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch Study Area over a combined distance of 240 miles, 

the two alignments do converge through the major urban centers of Syracuse, Rochester, and 

Buffalo, where they merge to continue to Niagara Falls. 

West of Rensselaer County, the 125 Study Area branches off to extend south of the cities of Albany 

and Schenectady, following the New York State Thruway, then leaves the New York State Thruway 

to traverse through primarily rural land through Schenectady, Schoharie, Montgomery, Herkimer, 

Oneida, and Madison counties. 

Schoharie County is the only county that falls within the 125 Study Area that the existing Empire 

Corridor West/Niagara Branch 90/110 Study Area does not traverse. Of all the study area counties, 

Schoharie has the second lowest minority population (3.7%). The low-income population remains 

similar to the western portion of the Empire Corridor study area at 11.0 percent. 

Like the 90/110 Study Area, the 125 Study Area also passes through the cities of Albany, 

Schenectady, Syracuse, Rochester and Buffalo; however, the 125 Study Area does not pass through 

the city of Utica. Existing Amtrak passenger service to all existing station stops along the Empire 

Corridor West (including the stations bypassed by the 125 Study Area) will be maintained under 

the 125 mph alternative, so these populations’ centers will continue to be serviced.

Page G-30 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation Tier 1 Draft EIS

5. Community Facilities

As illustrated in Exhibit G-3, Community Facilities Maps (3 of 3) within the 90/110 Study Area, 

there were a total of:

• Twelve colleges or institutes and thirty-three K-12 schools; 

• Eight fire stations and four police stations (including a police station for the Oneida Indian 

Nation);

• Sixteen medical facilities, including hospitals, medical offices, and emergency ambulance 

services;

• Twenty-two post offices;

• Nineteen libraries;

• Twenty-two churches and religious institutions;

• Twenty-three government offices, including a foreign consulate, courthouses, federal, state, 

county, and municipal government offices;

• Four military installations, including Camp Smith New York State Military Reservation, U.S. 

Military Academy at West Point, a U.S. Naval Recruiting office in Schenectady, and Niagara Falls 

Air Force Reserve Base; 

• Twenty-five cultural sites, including museums, arenas, auditoriums, and tourist information 

centers;

• Nine facilities that are either Department of Public Works maintenance facilities, sewer 

facilities, or solid waste/landfill/recycling facilities;

• Five correctional facilities;

• Three airports; and 

• Seventeen cemeteries.

Within the 125 Study Area, there were a total of:

• Nine colleges or institutes and thirty-three K-12 schools; 

• Three fire stations and two police stations;

• Thirteen medical facilities, including hospitals, medical offices, and emergency ambulance 

services;

• Twelve post offices;

• Ten libraries;

• Eleven churches and religious institutions;

• Thirteen government offices, including a foreign consulate, courthouses, federal, state, county, 

and municipal government offices;

• Four military installations, including Camp Smith New York State Military Reservation, U.S. 

Military Academy at West Point, New York Army National Guard Heliport in Albany, and 

Niagara Falls Air Force Reserve Base;

• Twenty-eight cultural sites, including museums, arenas, auditoriums, and tourist information 

centers;

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page G-31

New York State Department of Transportation 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation 

• Five facilities that are either Department of Public Works maintenance facilities, sewer facilities, 

or solid waste/landfill/recycling facilities;

• One correctional facility;

• Four airports; and 

• Thirteen cemeteries.

Page G-32 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
å ååååååå åå åå åå å ååå

åååå

ååå å

å ååå

ååå å å å åååå åå å ååå åå ååååå å ååååå åå åå

åå ååå å å å å å å

å åå åååå åå åå å å ååååååå ååååå å å åååå å

åååå ååååå å å å å å åå å å å å å åå å å åå å åååå åå åå åå ååååå å åå åå å å å å å å åå å ååå ååååå

å åå åå å å åå ååå åå å å å å å å å å åå åå å å å å åå å åå å å åå ååå åå å å åå

å å å åå åååå å å

åå åååå åå å åå åå ååå ååå å å åå å å å åå å å åå åååå ååå

åå åå åå å å å å å åå åå å åååå åå å å åå å ååå

åå åå åå å å å ååå ååå å å ååå

åå å åå å åå å å åå å å å å å å å å å åå ååå åå åå å å ååå å å å å å å å å ååå åååå å å å å å å å

å

å å å åå å ååå å å åå åå å åå å åå åå å å å åååå å åå ååå å å å å å å å å å å åå å å å åå å å å å å å å å å åå å åå å å å å å ååå å å å å å å å å å åå åå å å å å å å å å åå å å å å å å åå å å å å å å å å å å å åå å å å å

å å å åå åå å

å å å å å åå å å å å å å å åå å åå å åå å å å å å å

å å å å åå å

å

å

å å å å å å å å å å å åå å

å å å åå å å å å å

å åå å å å

å åå å å å å å

å å

å å åå å å å å åå å å å å

å å å

å å å å

å

å

å å å åå å å å å å ååå

å

å å å å å

å å å å å å å å å ååå å å å å å å å å

å å å å å åå å å å å å å å å å å å

å

å åå

å å å å å å

å å

åå åå å åå å ååå

åå å

åå å å å

å

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{ n{

n{n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

ny

nyny

ny

ny

ny

ny

ny

ny

ny ny

ny

ny

ny

ny

ny

ññ

ñ

ñ

ñ

ñ

ñ

ñ

ñ

ñ

^

^

^

11⁄211⁄211⁄211⁄211⁄211⁄211⁄2

11⁄211⁄2

11⁄211⁄211⁄2

11⁄211⁄2

11⁄211⁄211⁄211⁄2 11⁄2 11⁄2

11⁄211⁄211⁄2 11⁄211⁄2 11⁄211⁄211⁄2

11⁄2

11⁄211⁄2 11⁄211⁄2 11⁄211⁄211⁄2 11⁄211⁄211⁄211⁄2

11⁄2 11⁄2

11⁄211⁄2 11⁄211⁄2 11⁄211⁄211⁄211⁄2 11⁄211⁄2 11⁄2

11⁄2

11⁄2 11⁄2

11⁄211⁄2 11⁄2

11⁄2 11⁄2 11⁄2

11⁄2 11⁄2 11⁄2 11⁄2

11⁄211⁄2 11⁄2 11⁄2 11⁄2

11⁄2 11⁄2

11⁄2 11⁄2

11⁄2 11⁄2 11⁄211⁄2 11⁄2 11⁄2 11⁄2 11⁄2

11⁄2 11⁄211⁄2 11⁄2 11⁄2 11⁄2

11⁄211⁄2 11⁄2

11⁄2

11⁄2

11⁄2

11⁄2

11⁄2 11⁄2

11⁄2 11⁄2

ÆP

ÆP11⁄2

11⁄2

11⁄2

ÆP#11⁄2

n{ñ

11⁄2

#

11⁄2

!®

ÆP

ÆP

ÆPñ

ñî

11⁄2

ññ

!®

ñ

ÆPÆP

#

11⁄2

11⁄2

!®

#

ñ!®

New York

Connecticut

New York

New Jersey

Hudson River

Yonkers

Poughkeepsie

New York Penn Station

§ ̈¦87 § ̈¦84

§ ̈¦287

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦280

§ ̈¦78

§ ̈¦95

§ ̈¦495

B e r g e n B e r g e n

E s s e x E s s e x

U n i o n U n i o n

P a s s a i c P a s s a i c

H u d s o n H u d s o n

M o r r i s M o r r i s

O r a n g e O r a n g e

U l s t e r U l s t e r

R o c k l a n d R o c k l a n d

D u t c h e s s D u t c h e s s

P u t n a m P u t n a m

W e s t c h e s t e r W e s t c h e s t e r

Q u e e n s Q u e e n s

B r o n x B r o n x

K i n g s K i n g s

N e w Y o r k N e w Y o r k

New York

Ramapo

Tuxedo

Cortlandt

Fishkill

Newburgh

Gardiner

Philipstown

Yorktown

Plattekill

Montgomery

La Grange

East Fishkill

Woodbury

Lloyd

Highlands

Kent

Cornwall

Greenburgh

New Windsor

Monroe

Stony Point

Wappinger

Haverstraw

Shawangunk

Mount Pleasant

Clarkstown

Putnam Valley

Orangetown

Yonkers

Blooming Grove

Chester

Poughkeepsie

Marlborough

Ossining

Hamptonburgh

New Castle

Somers

Crawford

New Rochelle

New Paltz

Beacon

Peekskill

Scarsdale

Rochester

Eastchester

Mount Vernon

Pelham

Beekman

North Hempstead

Wallkill

Copyright:© 2013 Esri

å

å åå å å å å å å å å å

åå åå å åå å ååå

åå å

å å å å

å å

å

å

å å

å

å å å å å å å å å å

å

åå å å å

å åå å å

å

å

å

å

å

å å

åå

åå å å

å å å

å

å å å å å

å

å å å

å å å

å å

å å å å å å å å å å å å å å å åå å å åå

å å å å å

å å å å å å å

å å å å

å å å å å å å å å

åå å åå å å å åå åå åå å å å å å å ååå

å å å å å å å å å åå å å å å å å å å å ååå å åå å å

å ååå å

åå å

å 

å å

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{ n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

ny

ny

nyny

ny

nyny

ny

ny

ñ

ñ

ñ

ñ

ñ

ññññññ

ñ

ñ

ñ

^^^

^

^

^

11⁄2

11⁄2 11⁄2

11⁄2 11⁄2

11⁄2

11⁄2

11⁄2

11⁄2

11⁄2 11⁄2 11⁄2 11⁄2

11⁄2

11⁄211⁄2 11⁄2 11⁄2 11⁄2 11⁄2 11⁄211⁄211⁄2

11⁄2

11⁄2 11⁄211⁄2

ñ

ÆPÆP

#

11⁄2

11⁄2

n{ñ

!®ï

!®

ñ

n{

!®î

î

!®î

!®

ñ

ñ!®

##

ñ11⁄2

ï

î

Y#î

#

ï ñ

ñ

ñ

#

# ï

ïïî n{ 11⁄2

ñ!®

Hudson River

Hudson River

New York

Connecticut

Putnam

Acres

Hudson

Rhinecliff

Poughkeepsie

Albany-Rensselaer

§ ̈¦87

§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦787

§ ̈¦890

A l b a n y A l b a n y

D u t c h e s s D u t c h e s s

C o l u m b i a C o l u m b i a

U l s t e r U l s t e r

G r e e n e G r e e n e

R e n s s e l a e r R e n s s e l a e r

Cairo

Catskill

Ghent

Milan

Schodack

Saugerties

Colonie

Westerlo

Stanford

Lloyd

Esopus

Clinton

Gallatin

Guilderland

Coeymans

Washington

Ulster

Claverack

Bethlehem

Chatham

New Scotland

Red Hook

Athens

Berne

Taghkanic

Hyde Park

Greenville

Rhinebeck

Ancram

Coxsackie

Livingston

Nassau

New Baltimore

Hunter

Pine Plains

Dover

Brunswick

Knox

Union Vale La Grange

Albany

Kinderhook

Copake

Stuyvesant

Amenia

Pleasant Valley

New Paltz

Clermont

Greenport

Troy

East Greenbush

Stockport

Northeast

North Greenbush Poestenkill

Germantown

Woodstock

Kingston

Poughkeepsie

Durham

Princetown

Plattekill

Jewett

Hudson

Cohoes

Watervliet

Marbletown

Copyright:© 2013 Esri

PENNSYLVANIA

ONTARIO

(CANADA)

NEW YORK

6 5 4 3

1

2

KEY MAP

0 2.5 5 10

Miles

MAP 1 MAP 2

I Tier 1 EIS

High Speed Rail

Empire Corridor Program

Community Facilities Map

Source: NYS GIS

Existing Empire Corridor

Alternative 125 Corridor

Amtrak Station

Y Airport

ï Cemetery

11⁄2 College/University

ñ Government Office

ÆP Hospital

n{ Library

# Recreation

!® Post Office

î Religious

^ Point of Interest

ny Tourist Info

n{ Public Libraries

å School K-12

New York State Offices

SUNY Research Center

New York State Correctional Facilities

New York State Psychiatric Centers

New York State National Guard

New York State Non Recreational

Federal Reservation

Federal Military

Federal Correctional Facility

VA Medical Center

Federal Non-Recreation

Alt. 125 as shown is a potential corridor used to analyze the potential operating characteristics, environmental impacts and cost for this speed (125 mph) threshold. *

*

Exhibit G-3
å å å

å å å

å å

å å å å å

å åå å å å å åå åå å å å ååå å

å å

å å å å å

å å å å å åå å å å å å å åå å åå å å å å å åå å å å å å å ååå å å å å åå ååå å åå å å å å å å å å åå å åå å åå ååå

ååå åå å å åå å å

å

å å å å å å å å å å åå å å

å åå å å å å å

å å å

å

å

å

å

å å

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{ n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{ n{

n{ n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{ n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

nyny

ny

ny

ny

ny

ny

ñññññ

ñ

ñ

ñ

ñ

ñ

ññ

^^

^

^

^

11⁄2 11⁄2 11⁄2 11⁄2

11⁄211⁄211⁄2 11⁄2 11⁄2 11⁄2 11⁄2 11⁄211⁄211⁄2

11⁄2

11⁄2 11⁄211⁄2

11⁄2

11⁄2

11⁄2

11⁄2

11⁄2

!®

ñ

n{î

!®

î

!®î

!®

ñ

ñ

!®

ï

ñ

#!®

ÆPî# îï ïïîïÆP

î ÆP

!®îÆP

îñï ïï

##

ñ11⁄2

ï

î

Y#î

#

ñï

ññ

#

#ï

ïîn{ 11⁄2

Yñ!® Y

ñ ï

#

Y

ñ

#

ñ

Hudson River

Amsterdam

Schenectady

Albany-Rensselaer

§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦88

§ ̈¦87

§ ̈¦787

§ ̈¦890

F u l t o n F u l t o n

O t s e g o O t s e g o

S a r a t o g a S a r a t o g a H e r k i m e r H e r k i m e r

A l b a n y A l b a n y

M o n t g o m e r y M o n t g o m e r y

S c h o h a r i e S c h o h a r i e

S c h e n e c t a d y S c h e n e c t a d y

R e n s s e l a e r R e n s s e l a e r

Root

Glen

Otsego

Knox

Colonie

Florida

Minden

Mayfield

Galway

Stark

Duanesburg

Greenfield

Glenville

Malta

Milton

Berne

Sharon

Warren

Palatine

Fairfield Caroga

Oppenheim

Seward

Perth

Hartwick

Carlisle

Ephratah

Wright

Mohawk

Wilton

Springfield

Stratford

Providence

Bleecker

Danube

Westford

Ballston

Salisbury

Columbia

Herkimer

Exeter

Richfield

Cobleskill

Roseboom

Decatur

Fulton Bethlehem

Newport

Johnstown

Middlefield

Guilderland

Clifton Park

Charleston

Charlton

Broadalbin

Canajoharie

Rotterdam

Manheim

Stillwater

Albany

Cherry Valley

Schuyler

Schoharie

Middleburgh

New Scotland

Amsterdam

German Flatts

Little Falls

Princetown

Richmondville

Worcester

Esperance

Saratoga Springs

Niskayuna

St Johnsville

Summit

Edinburg

Northampton

Schenectady

Waterford

Cohoes

Gloversville

Milford Maryland

Winfield

Copyright:© 2013 Esri

å å å

å å

å åå

å å å å

åå å å å å å å å å å

å å åå

å å å å å

å åå å å å å å å å åå å å å åå ååå å å å å å å å åå å å å å å å å å å åå åå åååå å å å å

å å åå å åå å å å å å å å åå å å å å åå åå å å å å å

å

å åå åå

åå å å

åå å åå å å ååå å å å å å å å å å å å å åå åå å å å å å å å å åå å å å å å

ååå å å å å å å å å å å åå å å

å å å å å å å ååå å åå å

å å

å

ååå å å

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{ n{

n{ n{ n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{ n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{ n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{ n{

n{

n{

ny ny

ny

ny

ny

ny

ñ

ñ

ññ

ñ

ññ

^ ^

^^

^

^ ^

^

11⁄2

11⁄2

11⁄2

11⁄2

11⁄2 11⁄2 11⁄2 11⁄211⁄211⁄2 11⁄211⁄2 11⁄2 11⁄2 11⁄211⁄2

11⁄2 11⁄2 11⁄2

11⁄211⁄2 11⁄2

11⁄2

11⁄2

îñï ïï

î ##

!®n{ !® n{# îñ

îñ

!® ïY ï # ï

# ï

11⁄2

#

# 11⁄2

#

# ï #

#

ñ ïï î ÆP

î# î ïïï

ï

# Y#

ï !® ï

ññ

Oneida

Lake

Rome

Utica

Syracuse § ̈¦90

§ ̈¦81

§ ̈¦690

§ ̈¦481

§ ̈¦790

O n e i d a O n e i d a

O n o n d a g a O n o n d a g a

M a d i s o n M a d i s o n

O s w e g o O s w e g o

C a y u g a C a y u g a

H e r k i m e r H e r k i m e r

O t s e g o O t s e g o

C o r t l a n d C o r t l a n d

Vienna

Rome

Clay

Verona

Sullivan

Constantia

Niles

Pompey

Lee

Eaton

Cicero

Brookfield

Lysander

Fabius

Manlius

Nelson

Floyd

Onondaga Paris

Lenox

Trenton

Marcy

Tully

Vernon

Madison

Granby

Otisco

Elbridge

Fenner

La Fayette

Lebanon Hamilton

Kirkland

Camillus

Marshall

Schroeppel

Van Buren

Western

Russia

Lincoln

Litchfield

Plainfield

Hastings

Ira

Annsville

Camden

Sangerfield

Steuben

Scott

Cazenovia

De Witt

Spafford

Skaneateles

Frankfort

Deerfield

Marcellus

Augusta

Exeter

Schuyler

Utica

Oneida

Westmoreland

Winfield

Syracuse

Georgetown

Stockbridge

DeRuyter

Salina

Smithfield

West Monroe

Whitestown

Cuyler

Bridgewater

Volney

New Hartford

Cato

Owasco

Sennett

Geddes

Richfield

Remsen

Columbia

Palermo

Edmeston

Fulton

Sherrill

Amboy

Copyright:© 2013 Esri

PENNSYLVANIA

ONTARIO

(CANADA)

NEW YORK

6 5 4 3

1

2

KEY MAP

MAP 4

MAP 3

I 0 5 10 2.5

Miles

Tier 1 EIS

High Speed Rail

Empire Corridor Program

Community Facilities Map

Source: NYSGIS

Y Airport

ï Cemetery

11⁄2 Colleges and Universities

ñ Government Offices

ÆP Hospital

n{ Library

# Recreation

!® Post Office

î Religious

^ Points of Interest

ny Tourist Info

å School K-12

Federal Reservation

Federal Military

Federal Correctional Facility

VA Medical Center

Federal Non-Recreation

New York State Offices

SUNY Research Center

New York State Correctional Facilities

New York State Psychiatric Centers

New York State National Guard

New York State Non Recreational

Existing Empire Corridor

Alternative 125 Corridor

Amtrak Station

Alt. 125 as shown is a potential corridor used to analyze the potential operating characteristics, environmental impacts and cost for this speed (125 mph) threshold.

*

*

Exhibit G-3
å åå

å

åå

å

å å

ååå å ååå å

å

å å å å å

å å

å å å

åå åå åå åå å å å å å å åå å å å å å å å å å å åå å å å å ååå å å å å å å å å åå åå å å å å

å å å åå å å å åå å åå å å å å ååå å å ååå å åå å å åå å å ååå å å å å å å å å å å åå

åå å åååå å å å å å å å åå å å ååå å å å å å å å å å ååå å å å å å åå å å ååå å å å åå åå å å å å å å å å å å å å å å å å åå å å å

ååå

n{

n{ n{

n{ n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{ n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{ n{

ny ny

ny

ny

ny

ñ

ñ

ñ

ñ

^

11⁄2

11⁄2

11⁄2 11⁄2 11⁄2 11⁄2

11⁄2 11⁄2 11⁄2 11⁄2

11⁄2

11⁄2 11⁄2

îñ

!® ï

# ï

!®

ñï

# ñ

î

ñn{î#

îî

# #

îñ!®

ï !® ï

ññ

#

#

#

11⁄2 Y #

Lake

Ontario

Rochester

§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦390

§ ̈¦490 § ̈¦590 W a y n e W a y n e

M o n r o e M o n r o e

O n t a r i o O n t a r i o

C a y u g a C a y u g a

S e n e c a S e n e c a

L i v i n g s t o n L i v i n g s t o n

O s w e g o O s w e g o

Ira

Sodus

Galen

Phelps

Chili

Fayette

Cato

Tyre

Greece

Huron

Arcadia

Parma

Rose

Lima

Lyons

Butler

Victor

Sterling

Rush

Ogden

Wolcott

Hannibal

Riga

Mendon

Victory

York

Penfield

Seneca

Ontario

Macedon

Marion

Webster

Perinton Palmyra

Junius

Henrietta

Hopewell

Aurelius

Conquest

Sennett

Walworth

Caledonia

Rochester

Livonia Gorham

Fleming

Geneseo Bristol

Hamlin

Wheatland

Gates

Throop

Oswego

Niles

Avon

Canandaigua

Savannah

Farmington

Brutus

Manchester

Williamson

Owasco

Mentz

Pittsford

Waterloo

Springport

Seneca Falls

East Bloomfield

Richmond

Brighton

Montezuma

West Bloomfield

Geneva

Scipio

Auburn

Lysander

Irondequoit Sweden

East Rochester

Copyright:© 2013 Esri

å

å

å å

åå å å å å å å å å å åå å å å å å å å å å å å å å å åå å å å å å å å å å åå å åå å å å å å å å åå å å å å å ååå å åå åå å åå åå å ååå å åå

å

å å åå åå

å åå

å å åå å ååå å å åå åå å å å å å å å åååå å å å

å åå ååå ååå åå å å å å å å å å å å åå å å å å å å åå å å å å åå å å å åå å å å å å å å å å å å å å å åå å å å å å å åå å

å å å å åå å å

å å åå å å å å

å å å

å å å å å å å å åå å å å å å å å å å å å å å å å å

å åå åå å å å å

åå å å å å

å åå åå å å å

ååå

åå

åå å å

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{ n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

n{

ny

ny

ny

ny

ny ny

ny

ny

ñ

ññ

ñ

ñ

^

^

^

^

^^

^

^^^

^

11⁄2

11⁄2 11⁄2

11⁄2

11⁄2

11⁄2

11⁄2 11⁄211⁄2 11⁄2

11⁄2 11⁄211⁄211⁄2

11⁄2 11⁄2

11⁄2

11⁄2 11⁄2 11⁄2

11⁄2 

11⁄2 

11⁄2

11⁄2

11⁄2

îñ!®

!®

î

în{ñ

ñ

!®

ñññ

ñ Y

ïï

##

ñ

ï

ïn{

ï

Y ñîññ

ñ#

# 11⁄2 Y #

# ï!®ïY

#

î ï

ñ

ï

ññ

Ontario

(Canada)

New York

(United States)

Lake

Erie

Lake

Ontario

Lake

Ontario

Buffalo-Depew

Niagara Falls

Buffalo-Exchange Street

§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦190 § ̈¦490

§ ̈¦290

E r i e E r i e

N i a g a r a N i a g a r a

G e n e s e e G e n e s e e

O r l e a n s O r l e a n s

W y o m i n g W y o m i n g

M o n r o e M o n r o e

L i v i n g s t o n L i v i n g s t o n

E r i e E r i e

York

Barre Royalton

Elba

Riga

Darien

Batavia

Wilson

Buffalo

Elma

Shelby

Amherst

Hartland

Attica

Clarence

Le Roy

Alabama

Alden

Hamlin

Newstead

Porter

Newfane

Byron

Ridgeway

Gaines

Bennington

Cambria

Pavilion

Murray

Bethany

Sweden

Pembroke

Marilla

Stafford

Lancaster

Bergen

Clarkson

Alexander

Clarendon

Carlton

Perry

Yates

Kendall

Ogden

Caledonia

Covington

Aurora Wales Sheldon Leicester

Somerset

Warsaw

Lockport

Lewiston Albion

Middlebury

Wheatfield Oakfield

Pendleton

Grand Island

Hamburg

Cheektowaga

Orchard Park

Tonawanda

West Seneca

Wheatland

Niagara Falls

Niagara

Orangeville

North Tonawanda

Lackawanna

Copyright:© 2013 Esri

PENNSYLVANIA

ONTARIO

(CANADA)

NEW YORK

6 5 4 3

1

2

KEY MAP

I 0 5 10 2.5

Miles

Tier 1 EIS

High Speed Rail

Empire Corridor Program

MAP 6

MAP 5

Community Facilities Map

Source: NYSGIS

Y Airport

ï Cemetery

11⁄2 Colleges and Universities

ñ Government Offices

ÆP Hospital

n{ Library

# Recreation

!® Post Office

î Religious

^ Points of Interest

ny Tourist Info

å School K-12

Federal Reservation

Federal Military

Federal Correctional Facility

VA Medical Center

Federal Non-Recreation

New York State Offices

SUNY Research Center

New York State Correctional Facilities

New York State Psychiatric Centers

New York State National Guard

New York State Non Recreational

Existing Empire Corridor

Alternative 125 Corridor

Amtrak Station

Alt. 125 as shown is a potential corridor used to analyze the potential operating characteristics, environmental impacts and cost for this speed (125 mph) threshold.

*

*

Exhibit G-3
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation 

6. Surface Waterbodies and Watercourses

6.1 Empire Corridor South

The Empire Corridor South segment, from New York City to Rensselaer, extends 142 miles and in 

many locations closely follows the east bank of the Hudson River. This program segment includes 

the study area counties of New York County (Manhattan Borough), Bronx County, Westchester 

County, Putnam County, Dutchess County, Columbia County, and Rensselaer County. The entire 

corridor in this segment is located in the Lower Hudson River watershed. 

The rail corridor extends approximately 10.25 miles north through Manhattan (New York 

County) from its southern terminus, daylighting from a rail tunnel just north of Milepost 5. The 

Hudson River is generally within 150 to 300 feet of the western side of the railroad for the majority 

of the county. The entire length of the Hudson River in New York County is listed as an impaired 

water. Just before leaving New York County, the railroad crosses the Harlem River (also known as 

Spuyten-Duyvil Creek) at a swing-span bridge north of Milepost 10 and just east of the outlet into 

the Hudson River, before entering Bronx County. The Harlem River is listed as an impaired water 

by the NYSDEC at this crossing. 

After crossing the Harlem River, the rail corridor enters and extends through Bronx County a 

distance of approximately 2.6 miles. There are no waterway crossings in Bronx County, however, 

the corridor closely adjoins the west bank of the Hudson River throughout the county.

The railroad continues to closely adjoin the Hudson River through 31.5 miles of the rail corridor as 

it extends through Westchester County, largely remaining within 50 to 500 feet of the river. The 

majority of the rail corridor remains in close proximity to the Hudson River, with the exception of a 

1-mile section north of Tarrytown (MPs 25 to 26), another 1-mile section at Croton Point (MPs 33

to 34) that includes the Croton-Harmon Station, north of the Croton Bay crossing, and a roughly 5-

mile section between the crossing of Furnace Brook and Peekskill. 

There are approximately 23 waterway crossings in Westchester County, including a crossing of the 

Saw Mill River, a protected water, south of Yonkers Station, and Croton Bay, both a protected and 

impaired waterway. Of these river crossings, 18 are protected waters (Class C(t) or B or above), 

and 11 are impaired 303(d) waters. The protected and impaired streams include Kemmeys 

Cove/Sparta Brook (MP 29.5), Croton Bay (MPs 32.5 to 33, a U.S. Coast Guard permitted MetroNorth Bridge), and five unnamed streams (MPs 24, 28.5, 31, 37.5, and 40.5). The protected streams 

include Saw Mill River (MP 15), Wickers Creek North (MP 21), Gory Brook (MP 26.5), Brinton 

Brook (MP 36), Furnace Brook (MP 37), Peekskill Bay (MP 42, a U.S. Coast Guard permitted MetroNorth Bridge), Broccy Creek (MP 44), and five other unnamed streams (MPs 19.5, 23, 27, 34.5, and 

43). Impaired waterways include Dickey Brook, Broccy Creek, and two unnamed streams (MPs 25 

and 29). 

The railroad continues to closely adjoin the Hudson River through 9.3 miles of the rail corridor as it 

extends through Putnam County, largely remaining within 50 to 500 feet of the river. The majority 

of the rail corridor remains in close proximity to the Hudson River, with the exception of a 1-mile 

section south of Cold Springs (MPs 51 to 52), where the Hudson River meanders about 3⁄4-mile to 

the west of the rail corridor before extending in close proximity to the railroad at Foundry Cove 

(MP 52).

Page G-36 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation Tier 1 Draft EIS

There are approximately 12 waterway crossings in Putnam County, including several bridges over 

the inlets and coves of the Hudson River (MP 51, MP 52 [Foundry Cove], and MP 53). Of these 12 

crossings, 11 are protected waters (Class C(t) or B or above), and nine are impaired 303(d) waters. 

The protected and impaired streams include Copper Mine Brook (MP 47), Arden Brook (MP 49.5), 

Hudson River (MPs 51 and 53), Breakneck Brook (MP 54), and four unnamed streams (MPs 45.5, 

47.5, 48 and 48.5). Other protected streams include Foundry Cove (MP 52) and one unnamed 

stream (MP 46). 

The railroad traverses approximately 45.6 miles across Dutchess County. The majority of the 

railroad is within 50 to 300 feet of the Hudson River and crosses several coves and inlets of the 

river as it passes through the county. The entire Hudson River is listed as an impaired waterway in 

Dutchess County. There are two areas in Dutchess County where the Hudson River is outside of the 

railroad’s 300-foot buffer: a 1-mile section through the town of Poughkeepsie (MPs 72 to 73), and a 

roughly 2-mile section through the small town of Staatsburg (MPs 83 to 85).

There are approximately 38 waterway crossings in this county, including several tributaries of the 

Hudson River (MPs 58, 66, 69, 71.5, 77, 85-86, 87, 90, 91, 93.5, 95.5-97 and 98). Of the 38 

crossings, 34 are protected waters (Class C(t) or B or above), and 28 are impaired 303(d) waters. 

The protected and impaired streams include Cascade Brook (MP 56), Gordons Brook/Melzingha 

Brook (MP 56.5), Hudson River (MPs 66, 69, 77, 87, 90 and 93.5), Casper Creek/Tributary to Cobalt 

Lake (MP 67), Crum Elbow Creek (MP 79.5), Bard Rock Creek (MP 80.5), Indian Kill (MP 83), 

Mudder Kill (MP 94.5), South Bay of Hudson River (MPs 95.5 to 97), North Bay of Hudson River 

(MP 98), and eleven unnamed streams (MPs 61, 63, two at 74.5, 75.5, 81.5, 87.5, 89.5, 90.5, 92.5, 

and 94). The protected streams include Fishkill Creek/Hudson River (MP 58), Wappinger Creek 

(MP 65, also known as the New Hamburg Railroad Bridge), Maritje Kill (MP 77), Vandenburgh Cove 

(MPs 85 to 86), Astor Cove (MP 91), and three unnamed streams (two at MP 55.5 and MP 60). 

Impaired waterways include Casper Creek/Tributary to Cobalt Lake, Fall Kill Creek (MP 73.5), and 

North Staatsburg Creek (MP 84.5). 

The railroad continues to closely adjoin the Hudson River through the majority of the 29.5 miles of 

the rail corridor as it extends through Columbia County, largely remaining within 50 to 300 feet of 

the river. The majority of the rail corridor remains in close proximity to the Hudson River, with the 

exception of two areas: a 3-mile section between the towns of Newton Hook and Stuyvesant (MPs 

121 to 124), where the Hudson River meanders about 1⁄4-mile to the west of the rail corridor before 

extending in close proximity to the railroad at just before the town of Stuyvesant, and a 1-mile 

section between MP 126 and MP 127 where, again the Hudson River meanders to the west about 1⁄4 

-mile from the rail corridor.

There are approximately 22 waterway crossings in Columbia County, including several bridges over 

the inlets of the Hudson River. Of the 22 crossings, 14 are protected waters (Class C(t) or B or 

above), and 19 are impaired 303(d) waters. The protected streams include the Hudson River (at 

least four crossings at MPs 105, 106, 117.5 and 120), which is also an impaired water. Protected 

and impaired waters include Roeliff Jensen Kill (MP 108), North Bay of the Hudson, and eight 

unnamed tributaries of the Hudson River (MPs 103.5, 104.5, 107.5, 109.5, 112, 114, 118 and 123.5). 

Impaired waterways include the Foxes Creek (MP 109), North Bay of the Hudson River (MPs 115-

116.5), Mill Creek (MP 126), and three unnamed streams (MPs 121.5, 126.5 and 127.5).

All of the Build alternatives follow the existing Empire Corridor South for the majority of its length, 

deviating only in Rensselaer County, where Alternative 125 splits off 1.6 miles south of where the 

existing Empire Corridor turns to the west. The rail corridor continues to closely border the 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page G-37

New York State Department of Transportation 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation 

Hudson River through the southern portion of Rensselaer County, but as it approaches Castletonon-Hudson (MPs 134 to 135), the railroad moves inland and runs parallel to, but further east of, the 

Hudson River bank. To the north, the river remains outside of the 300-foot buffer study area, 

extending up to approximately a half-mile away from the river in certain areas. Approximately one 

mile north of Albany-Rensselaer Station, the existing Empire Corridor (90/110 Study Area) crosses 

the Hudson River into Albany County at the Livingston Avenue Bridge. There are approximately 10 

waterway crossings along the 13.4 miles within the existing Empire Corridor (90/110 Study Area) 

in Rensselaer County. Of the 10 crossings, none are protected waters (Class C(t) or B or above), and 

seven are impaired 303(d) waters. The impaired streams include Muitzes Kill (MP 133), Papscanee 

Creek (MPs 136 and 139), Mill Creek (MP 141.5) and three unnamed streams (MPs 129, 131 and 

142.5). The Hudson River is also an impaired water way adjacent to the railroad in this county.

Nearing the county line, the 125 Study Area would cross the Hudson River at MP QH143.5 on a new 

bridge structure. There are approximately nine waterway crossings in Rensselaer County along the 

125 Study Area. Of the nine crossings, none are protected waters (Class C(t) or B or above), and six 

are impaired 303(d) waters. The impaired streams include Muitzes Kill (MP 133), Papscanee Creek 

(MPs 136 and 139), Mill Creek (MP QH142.5), and two unnamed streams (MPs 129 and 131). The 

Hudson River is also an impaired waterway adjacent to the railroad in this county.

Page G-38 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation Tier 1 Draft EIS

Exhibit G-4—Empire Corridor South Surface Water Crossings (for both 90/110 and 125 Study Areas 

unless otherwise noted)

County (Appx. Mile 

Post)

River/Stream 

Crossing

(Appx. Mile Post)

Name

Impaired 

(303(d))/ 

Priority 

Water

Protected

New York (0-11.5) 10 Harlem River Y (MS4) N

Bronx (11.5-14) none NA NA NA

Westchester (14-45) 15

19.5

21

22.5

23

24

25

26.5

27

28.5

29

29.5

31

32.5-33

34.5

36

37

37.5

40

40.5

42

43

44

Saw Mill River

Unnamed Tributary to the Hudson River

Wickers Creek North

Barney Brook

Unnamed Tributary to the Hudson River

Unnamed Tributary to the Hudson River

Unnamed Tributary to the Hudson River

Gory Brook

Unnamed Tributary to the Hudson River

Unnamed Tributary to the Hudson River

Unnamed Tributary to the Hudson River

Kemmeys Cove/Sparta Brook

Unnamed Tributary to the Hudson River

Croton Bay

Unnamed Tributary to the Hudson River

Brinton Brook

Furnace Brook

Unnamed Tributary to the Hudson River

Dickey Brook

Unnamed Tributary to the Hudson River

Peekskill Bay

Unnamed Tributary to the Hudson River

Broccy Creek

Y (MS4)

N

N 

N 

N 

Y 

Y 

N 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

N

Y

Y

N

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y

Y

Putnam (45 -54.5) 45.5

46

47

47.5

48

48.5

49.5

51

52

53

54

54.5

Unnamed Tributary to the Hudson River

Unnamed Tributary to the Hudson River

Copper Mine Brook

Unnamed Tributary to the Hudson River

Unnamed Tributary to the Hudson River

Unnamed Tributary to the Hudson River

Arden Brook

Hudson River

Foundry Cove

Hudson River

Breakneck Brook

Catskill Aqueduct

Y

N

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y

N

Y

Y

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y

N

Dutchess (54.5-75/76-

100.5)

55.5

55.5

56

56.5

58

60

61

63

65

66

66.5

67

69

71.5

73.5

74.5

74.5

75.5

77

77

79.5

Unnamed Tributary to the Hudson River

Unnamed Tributary to the Hudson River

Cascade Brook

Gordons Brook/Melzingha Brook

Fishkill Creek/Hudson River

Unnamed Tributary to the Hudson River

Unnamed Tributary to the Hudson River

Unnamed Tributary to the Hudson River

Wappinger Creek

Hudson River

Unnamed Tributary to the Hudson River

Casper Creek/Tributary to Cobalt Lake

Hudson River

Sunfish Cove

Fall Kill Creek

Unnamed Tributary to the Hudson River

Unnamed Tributary to the Hudson River

Unnamed Tributary to the Hudson River

Maritje Kill

Hudson River/Franklin D Roosevelt Home 

Pond

Crum Elbow Creek

N

N

Y 

Y 

N 

N 

Y 

Y 

N 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

N 

Y (C), (MS4)

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

N 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y

Y

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page G-39

New York State Department of Transportation 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation 

Exhibit G-4—Empire Corridor South Surface Water Crossings (for both 90/110 and 125 Study Areas 

unless otherwise noted)

County (Appx. Mile 

Post)

River/Stream 

Crossing

(Appx. Mile Post)

Name

Impaired 

(303(d))/ 

Priority 

Water

Protected

80.5

81.5

83

84.5

85-86

87

87.5

89.5

90

90.5

91

92.5

93.5

94

94.5

95.5-97

98

Bard Rock Creek

Unnamed Tributary to the Hudson River

Indian Kill

North Staatsburg Creek

Vandenburgh Cove

Hudson River

Unnamed Tributary to the Hudson River

Unnamed Tributary to the Hudson River

Hudson River/Pond

Unnamed Tributary to the Hudson River

Astor Cove

Unnamed Tributary to the Hudson River

Unnamed/Hudson River 

Unnamed Tributary to the Hudson River

Mudder Kill

South Bay of Hudson River

North Bay of Hudson River

Y

Y

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y

Y

Y

Y

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y

Y

Columbia (100.5-129.5) 103.5

104.5

105

106

107.5

108

109

109.5

112

114

115-116.5

117.5

118

118.5

120

121.5

122.5

123

123.5

126

126.5

127.5

Unnamed Tributary to the Hudson River

Unnamed Tributary to the Hudson River

Hudson River

Hudson River and Unnamed Pond

Unnamed Tributary to the Hudson River

Roeliff Jensen Kill

Foxes Creek

Unnamed/Hudson River

Unnamed Tributary to the Hudson River

Unnamed Tributary to the Hudson River

North Bay of Hudson River

Hudson River 

Unnamed Tributary to the Hudson River

Stockport Creek

Hudson River

Unnamed Tributary to the Hudson River

Unnamed Pond

Unnamed Pond

Unnamed Tributary to the Hudson River

Mill Creek

Unnamed Tributary to the Hudson River

Unnamed Tributary to the Hudson River

Y

Y

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

N 

N 

Y 

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

N

N

N

Rensselaer (129.5-143) 129

129.5

131

133

134

135

136

139

141.5 (90/110 mph 

only

142.5 (90/110 mph 

only)

QH 142.5 (125 mph 

only)

Unnamed Tributary to the Hudson River

Unnamed Tributary to the Hudson River

Unnamed Tributary to the Hudson River

Muitzes Kill

Vlockie Kill

Moordener Kill

Papscanee Creek

Papscanee Creek

Mill Creek

Unnamed Tributary to the Hudson River

Mill Creek

Y

N

Y 

Y 

N 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y

N

N

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N

Notes: Appx. = Approximate, NA = Not Applicable, Y = Yes, N = No

(C) = 303(d) segments impaired by pollutants related to construction, as specified in Appendix E of the NYSDEC SPDES General Permit 

for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activity (Permit No. GP-0-10-001), January 29, 2010.

(MS4) = 303(d) segments impaired by pollutants of concern for municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s), as specified in 

Appendix 2 of the SPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from MS4s (Permit No. GP-0-10-002), October 14, 2011.

The 90/110 Study Area is used for analysis of Alternatives 90A, 90B, and 110 and consists of the existing 465-mile long Empire Corridor 

alignment. The 125 Study Area is used for analysis of Alternative 125 and consists of portions of the existing Empire Corridor and new 

Page G-40 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation Tier 1 Draft EIS

Exhibit G-4—Empire Corridor South Surface Water Crossings (for both 90/110 and 125 Study Areas 

unless otherwise noted)

County (Appx. Mile 

Post)

River/Stream 

Crossing

(Appx. Mile Post)

Name

Impaired 

(303(d))/ 

Priority 

Water

Protected

alignment and is 451 miles long. The study area width is defined as being within 300 feet of the corridor centerline. 

Source: NY GIS Clearinghouse, 2011; NYSDEC GIS Data, 2011

6.2 Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch: 90/110 Study Area

The Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch (90/110 Study Area) extends a distance of 322 miles 

through 13 counties. The Empire Corridor West generally follows or parallels several geographic 

features, including the Mohawk River or New York Canal System, and the New York State Thruway. 

The Niagara Branch turns north at Buffalo on Lake Erie, generally paralleling the Lake Erie 

shoreline and then extending north along the Niagara River. 

The railroad crosses over the Hudson River (MP 143) at the Livingston Avenue Bridge where it 

enters Albany, approximately one mile north of the Albany-Rensselaer Station. The city of Albany 

sits on the west bank of the Hudson River approximately 150 miles north of New York City. The 

railroad traverses approximately 11.8 miles across Albany County, extends across four waterways 

at nine crossings. Of the four water features, two are protected waters (Class C(t) or B or above), 

and three are impaired 303(d) waters. The protected and impaired streams include Patroons Creek 

(six crossings at MPs 144, 145, 146, 147, 148 and 149) and Lisha Kill (MP 154). Impaired 

waterways include the Hudson River (MP 143). The southeastern portion of Albany County is 

within the Lower Hudson River watershed, but just after the railroad crosses Rensselaer Lake (MP 

149), there is a transition to the Mohawk River watershed. Therefore, Lisha Kill is the only crossing 

of a water body in the Mohawk River watershed within Albany County.

The entire 14.7 miles of the Empire Corridor that pass through Schenectady County are located 

within the Mohawk River watershed. The Mohawk River/Erie Canal cross the railroad just west of 

the Schenectady Station (MP 160). West of this crossing, the Mohawk River/Erie Canal meanders 

along the south side of the railroad throughout the remainder of the county at distances between75 

feet to 1 1⁄4-miles from the railroad.

There are approximately nine waterway crossings in Schenectady County. Of the nine crossings, 

two are protected waters (Class C(t) or B or above), and all are impaired 303(d) waters. The 

protected and impaired streams include the Mohawk River/Erie Canal and an unnamed tributary of 

the Mohawk River (MPs 161 to 164.5). Impaired waterways include the Collins Creek (MP 161), 

Washout Creek (MP 166), Verf Kill (MP 168), Chaughtanoonda Creek (MP 169.5), and four

unnamed tributaries of the Mohawk River (MPs 158 to 158.5, 161 to 164.5 and two at MP 168.5).

The railroad continues to closely adjoin the north bank of the Mohawk River/Erie Canal through the 

40.3 miles of Montgomery County, largely remaining within 50 to 1,000 feet of the river/canal. 

The entire county remains within the Mohawk River watershed. There are approximately 35 

waterway crossings in this county, all of which are tributaries to the Mohawk River. Of the 35 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page G-41

New York State Department of Transportation 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation 

crossings, ten are protected waters (Class C(t) or B or above), and all are impaired 303(d) waters. 

The protected streams include McQueen Creek (MP 178.75), Briggs Run (MP 190.5), Knauderack 

Creek (MP 193.5), Zimmerman Creek (MP 207), Timmerman Creek (MP 207.5), Crum Creek (MP 

209.5) and four unnamed tributaries of the Mohawk River (three between MPs 180 to 181 and MP 

202.5).

Impaired waterways in Montgomery County, in addition to the streams above, include Compaanen 

Kill (MP 170.5), Cranes Hollow Creek (MP 172.5), Degraff Creek (MP 174), North Chuctanunda (MP 

176), Danascara Creek (MP 183), Cayadetta Creek (MP 186.5), Caroga Creek (MP 203.5), Mother 

Creek (MP 204), and 17 other unnamed tributaries to the Mohawk River (MPs 172, 174.5, 177.5, 

178.5, 185, 187.5, 188, 194.5, 196, 197, 198, 199, three between MPs 201 to 202, 205 and 206).

The railroad traverses through Herkimer County for approximately 25.3 miles, extending parallel 

and close to the Mohawk River/Erie Canal. The Mohawk River/Erie Canal continues to parallel the 

south side of the railroad until the town of Frankfurt (MP 228.5), where the Mohawk River 

separates from the Erie Canal and extends further south. The Erie Canal crosses the railroad at 

roughly MP 231.5 and the Mohawk River crosses further west at roughly MP 234. Both waterways 

remain north of the railroad (until Oneida County), west of these crossings.

There are approximately 19 waterway crossings in Herkimer County. Of the 19 crossings, four are 

protected waters (Class C(t) or B or above), and all are impaired 303(d) waters. The protected 

streams include East Canada Creek (MP 210), Beaver Brook (MP 220), West Canada Creek (MP 223) 

and Ferguson Creek (MP 234.5). In addition to the above-mentioned crossings, impaired waterways 

include the Bridenbecker Creek (MP 229.5), the Erie Canal (MP 231.5), Mohawk River (MP 234) 

and 12 unnamed tributaries of the Mohawk River (nine between MPs 211 to 219.5 and three 

between MPs 223 to 229).

The Empire Corridor extends 28.6 miles through Oneida County, paralleling the Erie Canal 

between Utica and Rome, where the canal diverges west to flow into Oneida Lake. The eastern half 

of Oneida County is within the Mohawk River watershed, but west of the Rome Station (MP 261.5) 

is the drainage divide with the Oswego River/Finger Lakes watershed. There are approximately 12 

waterway crossings in this county, of which four are protected waters (Class C(t) or B or above) 

and all are impaired 303(d) waters. The protected streams include Starch Factory Creek (MP 

235.5), Sauquoit Creek (MP 240.5), Oriskany Creek (MP 244.5) and the Mohawk River (MP 248.5). 

In addition to the above-mentioned crossings, impaired waterways also include Mad Creek (MPs 

256 to 256.5), Stony Creek (MP 261) and five unnamed tributaries to Wood Creek between MPs 

250.5 and 255.

The railroad extends 13.8 miles through Madison County, which is situated entirely within the 

Oswego River/Finger Lakes watershed. In the eastern half of the county, the railroad generally 

parallels the Old Erie Canal, within 100 to 1,000 feet to the south. At MP 272, the Old Erie Canal 

flows under the railroad, extending south and out of the study area. There are approximately 11 

waterway crossings in this county. Of the 11 crossings, four are protected waters (Class C(t) or B or 

above), and all are impaired 303(d) waters. The protected streams include Oneida Creek (MP 264), 

Canastota Creek (MP 270), Old Erie Canal/Owlville Creek (MP 272) and Chittenango Creek (MP 

276.5). In addition to the above-mentioned crossings, impaired waterways also include Cowaselon 

Creek (MP 266), Duck Settlement Creek (MPs 268 to 268.5), Canaseraga Creek (MP 273.5) and four 

unnamed streams (MPs 274, 275, 277 and 278).

The railroad extends 31.3 miles through Onondaga County, roughly paralleling the New York State 

Page G-42 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation Tier 1 Draft EIS

Thruway and skirting the southeast shores Onondaga Lake in the city of Syracuse. There are 

approximately 16 waterway crossings in this county and all are within the Oswego River/Finger 

Lakes watershed. Of the 16 crossings, four are protected waters (Class C(t) or B or above), and 13 

are impaired 303(d) waters. The protected streams include Lake Brook (MP 280.5), Dead 

Creek/White Bottom Creek (MP 303.5), Carpenters Brook (MP 305.5) and Skaneateles Creek (MP 

308). In addition to the above-mentioned crossings, impaired waterways also include Pools Brook 

(MP 278.5), Limestone Creek (MP 282.5), Butternut Creek (MP 285), South Branch Ley Creek (MP 

287), Barge Canal (MP 292), Geddes Brook (MP 295) and three unnamed streams (MPs 281, 288 

and 308.5). Three other streams, none of which are protected or impaired, cross the railroad in this 

county: Nine Mile Creek (MP 296.5), Bitter Brook (MP 302) and the Old Erie Canal (MPs 302.5 to 

303.

The Empire Corridor extends 11.5 miles through Cayuga County, roughly paralleling the New York 

State Thruway. There are approximately five waterway crossings in this county and all are within 

the Oswego River/Finger Lakes watershed. Of the five crossings, none are protected waters (Class 

C(t) or B or above), and all are impaired 303(d) waters. Impaired waterways include Putnam 

Brook (MP 312), Spring Brook (MP 312.5), Owasco Outlet (MP 316), Swamp Brook (MP 316.5) and 

the Seneca River (MP 319.5). 

The railroad extends 37.1 miles through Wayne County, paralleling portions of the Erie Canal and 

Route 31. The Erie Canal meanders back and forth along the railroad for much of the county, 

crossing the rail corridor east of the town of Lyons (MP 335) and east of the town of Newark (MP 

339.5). Approximately 98 percent of the railroad is located with the Oswego River/Finger Lakes 

watershed in Wayne County. Just before the western border of the county, the railroad enters the 

Lake Ontario Tributaries watershed (MP 357).

There are approximately 18 waterway crossings in this county, including the two Erie Canal 

crossings mentioned above. Of the 18 crossings, five are protected waters (Class C(t) or B or 

above), and all are impaired 303(d) waters. The protected streams include Canandaigua Creek (MP 

336), Marbletown Creek/tributaries (MPs 327 to 329), Ganargua Creek (MPs 342 to 347), Red 

Creek (MPs 351 to 352) and an unnamed tributary to the Erie Canal (MPs 354.5 to 355). In addition 

to the above-mentioned crossings, impaired waterways also include the Seneca River (MP 320), 

Black Creek (MPs 324 and 325), the Old Erie Canal (MP 326.5), Clyde River (MPs 328 to 330), Black 

Brook/Old Erie Canal (MP 332), Erie Canal and five unnamed streams (two at MP 322; MPs 323, 

325.5, 341 and 345).

The railroad extends 30.9 miles through Monroe County, closely paralleling the Erie Canal from 

the county’s eastern county line to west of the town of Fairport (MP 361.5), where the canal 

meanders south. The canal extends within the study area again west of the city of Rochester and 

crosses the railroad just east of Interstate 390 (MP 374.5), extending north out of the study area 

(until Niagara County). The eastern portion the county remains in the Lake Ontario Tributaries 

watershed, and the drainage divide with the Genesee River watershed (MP 370.5), is just east of 

Rochester and the Genesee River crossing (MP 371.5).

There are approximately 19 waterway crossings in Monroe County, including the Erie Canal 

crossing mentioned above. Of the 19 crossings, six are protected waters (Class C(t) or B or above), 

and 18 are impaired 303(d) waters. The protected streams include Thomas Creek (MPs 359.5 to 

362), Irondequoit Creek (MP 363), Allen Creek (MP 365.5), Genesee River, Erie Canal and Little 

Black Creek (MP 377.5). In addition to the above-mentioned crossings, impaired waterways also 

include and additional crossing of Irondequoit Creek (MP 367.5) and nine unnamed streams (MP 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page G-43

New York State Department of Transportation 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation 

379, six between MPs 380.5 to 383.5 and two between MPs 385 to 385.5).

The railroad traverses approximately 30 miles through Genesee County, generally following Route 

33. The railroad remains in the Genesee River watershed through the eastern portion of the county 

and passes into the Niagara River/Lake Erie watershed east of the town of Batvia (MP 401). There 

are approximately 17 waterway crossings in Genesee County. Of the 17 crossings, four are 

protected waters (Class C(t) or B or above), and 16 are impaired 303(d) waters. The protected 

streams include Bigelow Creek/Godfrey Pond (MP 398.5), Tonawanda Creek (MP 403.5) and two 

unnamed streams (MPs 399.5 and 407). In addition to the above-mentioned crossings, impaired 

waterways also include Robins Brook (MPs 392.5 and 394), Black Creek (MP 396.5), Bowen Creek 

(MP 408.5), Murder Creek (MP 414), and seven unnamed streams (MPs 389, 395, 401, 412, 415, 

416 and 417.5). The railroad also crosses an unnamed pond in Genesee County (MP 402), which is 

neither protected nor impaired.

The railroad extends 32.7 miles through Erie County, which is situated entirely within the Niagara 

River/Lake Erie watershed. The eastern segment follows Route 33, then Route 130 to the city of 

Buffalo, a distance of 20 miles. The Niagara Branch of the railroad turns north to follow the Lake 

Erie shoreline and then follows Route 265 north, roughly parallel to, and within 50 feet to 2.5 miles 

east of, the Niagara River, for a distance of 12.7 miles. Of the seven waterway crossings in this 

county, three are protected waters (Class C(t) or B or above), and six are impaired 303(d) waters. 

The protected and impaired waters include Ellicott Creek (MP 422.5), Scajaquada Creek (MP 

QDN6), and an unnamed tributary to Ellicott Creek (MP 418.5). The other impaired waterways 

include Ellicott Creek (MP QDN12.5), the North Branch of Plum Bottom Creek (MP 425.5), and one 

other unnamed stream (MP QDN7.5).

The railroad extends 14.4 miles through Niagara County within the Niagara River/Lake Erie 

watershed. The railroad follows the shoreline of the Niagara River, then extends north towards the 

Niagara Falls International Airport, turning west to terminate at Niagara Falls. Of the nine 

waterway crossings in the county, none are protected waters (Class C(t) or B or above), and eight 

are impaired 303(d) waters. The impaired waterways include Tonawanda Creek/Erie Canal (MP 

QDN13.5), Black Creek (MP QDN18), East Branch of Black Creek (MP QDN18.5), Sawyer Creek (MP 

QDN19.5), Bergholtz Creek (MP QDN20), Cayuga Creek (MP QDN21), Branch Gill Creek (MP 

QDN25) and Gill Creek (MP QDN26).

Page G-44 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation Tier 1 Draft EIS

Exhibit G-5—Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch Surface Water Crossings in the 90/110 Study Area 

County (Appx. Mile Post)

River/Stream 

Location

(Mile Post)

Name

Impaired 

(303(d))/ 

Priority Water

Protected

Albany (143-155) 143

144, 145, 146, 147, 

148, 149

149

154

Hudson River

Patroons Creek

Rensselaer Lake

Lisha Kill

Y

Y

N

Y

N

Y

N

Y

Schenectady (155-170/42 158-158.5

160

161

161-164.5

166

168

168.5

168.5

169.5

Unnamed Tributary to Mohawk River

Mohawk River/ Erie Canal

Collins Creek

Unnamed Tributary to Mohawk River 

Washout Creek

Verf Kill

Unnamed Tributary to Mohawk River 

Unnamed Tributary to Mohawk River 

Chaughtanoonda Creek

Y

Y

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y

Y

N

Y

N 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

N

N

Montgomery (170/42-210) 170.5

172

172.5

174

174.5

176

177.5

178.5

178.75

180

180.5

181

183

185

186.5

187.5

188

190.5

193.5

194.5

196

197

198

199

201

201.5

202

202.5

203.5

204

205

206

207

207.5

209.5

Compaanen Kill

Unnamed Tributary to Mohawk River 

Cranes Hollow Creek

Degraff Creek

Unnamed Tributary to Mohawk River

North Chuctanunda

Unnamed Tributary to Mohawk River

Unnamed Tributary to Mohawk River

McQueen Creek

Unnamed Tributary to Mohawk River

Unnamed Tributary to Mohawk River 

Unnamed Tributary to Mohawk River 

Danascara Creek

Unnamed Tributaries to Mohawk River

Cayadetta Creek

Unnamed Tributary to Mohawk River

Unnamed Tributary to Mohawk River 

Briggs Run

Knauderack Creek

Unnamed Tributary to Mohawk River

Unnamed Tributary to Mohawk River

Unnamed Tributary to Mohawk River 

Unnamed Tributary to Mohawk River 

Unnamed Tributary to Mohawk River 

Unnamed Tributary to Mohawk River

Unnamed Tributary to Mohawk River 

Unnamed Tributary to Mohawk River 

Unnamed Tributary to Mohawk River

Caroga Creek

Mother Creek

Unnamed Tributary to Mohawk River

Unnamed Tributary to Mohawk River

Zimmerman Creek

Timmerman Creek

Crum Creek

Y

Y

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y

Y

N

N

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

Y

Y

Herkimer (210-235) 210

211

212.5

213.5

214

215

216

217

217.5

219.5

220

223

223

East Canada Creek

Unnamed Tributary to Mohawk River

Unnamed Tributary to Mohawk River

Unnamed Tributary to Mohawk River

Unnamed Tributary to Mohawk River

Unnamed Tributary to Mohawk River

Unnamed Tributary to Mohawk River

Unnamed Tributary to Mohawk River

Unnamed Tributary to Mohawk River

Unnamed Tributary to Mohawk River

Beaver Brook

West Canada Creek

Unnamed TributarY to Mohawk River

Y

Y

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

Y

Y

N

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page G-45

New York State Department of Transportation 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation 

Exhibit G-5—Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch Surface Water Crossings in the 90/110 Study Area 

County (Appx. Mile Post)

River/Stream 

Location

(Mile Post)

Name

Impaired 

(303(d))/ 

Priority Water

Protected

224.5

229

229.5

231.5

234

234.5

Unnamed Tributary to Mohawk River

Unnamed Tributary to Mohawk River

Bridenbecker Creek

Erie Canal

Mohawk River

Ferguson Creek

Y

Y

Y 

Y

Y (MS4)

Y

N

N

N 

N

N

Y

Oneida (235-264) 235.5

240.5

244.5

248.5

250.5

251.5

251.5

252

254.5

255

256-256.5

261

Starch Factory Creek

Sauquoit Creek

Oriskany Creek

Mohawk River

Mohawk River

Unnamed Tributary to Wood Creek

Unnamed Tributary to Wood Creek

Unnamed Tributary to Wood Creek

Unnamed Tributary to Wood Creek

Unnamed Tributary to Wood Creek

Mad Creek

Stony Creek

Y

Y

Y 

Y (MS4)

Y (MS4)

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N

N

Madison (264-278) 264

266

268-268.5

270

272

273.5

274

275

276.5

277

278

Oneida Creek

Cowaselon Creek

Duck Settlement Creek

Canastota Creek

Old Erie Canal/Owlville Creek

Canaseraga Creek

Unnamed Tributary to Canaseraga 

Creek

Unnamed Tributary to Canaseraga 

Creek

Chittenango Creek

Unnamed Tributary to Chittenango 

Creek

Unnamed Tributary to Chittenango 

Creek

Y

Y

Y 

Y (MS4)

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y

Y

N

N 

Y 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

N

Onondaga (278-309) 278.5

280.5

281

282.5

285

287

288

292

295

296.5

302

302.5-303

303.5

305.5

308

308.5

Pools Brook

Lake Brook

Unnamed Tributary to Chittenango 

Creek Limestone Creek

Butternut Creek

South Branch Ley Creek

Unnamed Tributary to Ley Creek

Barge Canal

Geddes Brook

Nine Mile Creek

Bitter Brook

Old Erie Canal

Dead Creek/White Bottom Creek

Carpenters Brook

Skaneateles Creek

Unnamed Tributary to Skaneateles 

Creek

Y

Y

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y (C), (MS4)

Y (C), (MS4)

Y 

Y 

Y (C), (MS4)

N 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y

N

Y

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N

Cayuga (309-320) 312

312.5

316

316.5

319.5

Putnam Brook

Spring Brook

Owasco Outlet

Swamp Brook

Seneca River

Y

Y

Y 

Y

Y

N

N

N 

N

N

Wayne (320-357) 320

322

323

324 and 325

325.5

326.5

328-330

Seneca River

Unnamed Tributary to Crusoe Creek

Unnamed Tributary to Black Creek

Black Creek

Unnamed Tributary to Black Creek

Old Erie Canal

Clyde River/Erie Canal

Y

Y

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y

Y

N

N

N 

N 

N 

N

N

Page G-46 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation Tier 1 Draft EIS

Exhibit G-5—Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch Surface Water Crossings in the 90/110 Study Area 

County (Appx. Mile Post)

River/Stream 

Location

(Mile Post)

Name

Impaired 

(303(d))/ 

Priority Water

Protected

332

335

336

327-329

339.5

341

342-347

348

349.5

351-352

354.5-355

Old Erie Canal/Black Brook

Erie Canal

Canandaigua Creek

Marbletown Creek/Tributaries

Erie Canal

Unnamed Tributary to Ganargua Creek

Ganargua Creek

Unnamed Tributary to Ganargua Creek

Red Creek

Red Creek

Unnamed Tributaries to Erie Canal

Y

Y

Y 

Y (C)

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y

Y

N

N

Y 

Y 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

Y

Y

Monroe (357-388) 359.5-362

363

365.5

367.5

371.5

374.5

376

377.5

379

380.5

381

381.5

382

382.5

383

383.5

385

385.5

386

Thomas Creek

Irondequoit Creek

Allen Creek

Irondequoit Creek

Genesee River

Erie Canal

Unnamed Tributary to Erie Canal

Little Black Creek

Unnamed Tributary to Little Black 

Creek

Unnamed Tributary to Black Creek

Unnamed Tributary to Black Creek

Unnamed Tributary to Black Creek

Unnamed Tributary to Black Creek

Unnamed Tributary to Black Creek

Unnamed Tributary to Black Creek

Little Black Creek

Unnamed Tributary to Black Creek

Unnamed Tributary to Black Creek

Black Creek

Y (C), (MS4)

Y (C), (MS4)

Y 

Y (C), (MS4)

Y (C), (MS4)

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y (C), (MS4)

Y (C), (MS4)

Y (C), (MS4)

Y (C), (MS4)

Y (C), (MS4)

Y (C), (MS4)

Y 

Y (C), (MS4)

Y (C), (MS4)

Y (C), (MS4)

Y

Y

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

N 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N

N

Genesee (388-418) 389

392.5

394

395

396.5

398.5

399.5

401

402

403.5

407

408.5

412

414

415

416

417.5

Unnamed Tributary to Black Creek

Robins Brook

Robins Brook

Unnamed Tributary to Black Creek

Black Creek

Bigelow Creek/Godfrey Pond

Unnamed Tributary to Bigelow Creek

Unnamed Tributary of Horseshoe Lake

Unnamed Pond

Tonawanda Creek

Unnamed Tributary to Tonawanda 

Creek

Bowen Creek

Unnamed Tributary to Murder Creek

Murder Creek

Unnamed Tributary to Murder Creek

Unnamed Tributary to Ellicott Creek

Unnamed Tributary to Murder Creek

Y (C), (MS4)

Y

Y 

Y (C), (MS4)

Y (C), (MS4)

Y (C), (MS4)

Y (C), (MS4)

Y 

N 

Y (C), (MS4)

Y (C), (MS4)

Y (C), (MS4)

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y

Y

N

N

N 

N 

N 

Y 

Y 

N 

N 

Y 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N

N

Erie (418-439/QDN1-QDN13) 418.5

422.5

425.5

6 

7.5

12

12.5

Unnamed Tributary to Ellicott Creek

Ellicott Creek

North Branch of Plum Bottom Creek

Scajaquada Creek

Unnamed Tributary to Niagara River

Unnamed Tributary to Ellicott Creek

Ellicott Creek

Y (C), (MS4)

Y (C), (MS4)

Y 

Y (C), (MS4)

Y 

N

Y (C), (MS4)

Y

Y

N 

Y 

N 

N

N

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page G-47

New York State Department of Transportation 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation 

Exhibit G-5—Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch Surface Water Crossings in the 90/110 Study Area 

County (Appx. Mile Post)

River/Stream 

Location

(Mile Post)

Name

Impaired 

(303(d))/ 

Priority Water

Protected

Niagara (QDN13-QDN28) 13.5

14.5

18

18.5

19.5

20

21

25

26

Tonawanda Creek/Erie Canal

Unnamed Tributary to Niagara River

Black Creek

East Branch of Black Creek

Sawyer Creek

Bergholtz Creek

Cayuga Creek

Branch Gill Creek

Gill Creek

Y

N

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y (C), (MS4)

Y

Y

Y

N

N

N 

N 

N 

N 

N

N

N

Notes: Appx.= Approximate, Y = Yes, N = No

(C) = 303(d) segments impaired by pollutants related to construction, as specified in Appendix E of the NYSDEC SPDES General Permit 

for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activity (Permit No. GP-0-10-001), January 29, 2010.

(MS4) = 303(d) segments impaired by pollutants of concern for municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s), as specified in 

Appendix 2 of the SPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from MS4s (Permit No. GP-0-10-002), October 14, 2011.

The 90/110 Study Area is used for analysis of Alternatives 90A, 90B, and 110 and consists of the existing 465-mile long Empire Corridor 

alignment. The study area width is defined as being within 300 feet of the corridor centerline. 

Source: NY GIS Clearinghouse, 2011, NYSDEC GIS Data, 2011

Page G-48 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation Tier 1 Draft EIS

6.3 Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch: 125 Study Area

The Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch 125 Study Area follows a more direct route between 

Rensselaer and Buffalo, and does not closely adjoin the New York State Canal system. The 125 

Study Area crosses over the Hudson River (MP QH143.5), entering Albany County 1.8 miles south 

of the Livingston Avenue Bridge. The railroad skirts the southern boundary of the city of Albany 

and continues through Albany County over a distance of roughly 14 miles, crossing over Krum Kill 

at two locations. Of the two waterways crossed, only Krum Kill is a protected water (Class C(t) or B 

or above), and both the Hudson River and Krum Kill are impaired 303(d) waters. The entire county 

is within the Lower Hudson River watershed.

The 125 Study Area extends 17 miles through Schenectady County and remains in the Lower 

Hudson River watershed for approximately 1.5 miles before crossing into the Mohawk River 

watershed. It then passes back into the Lower Hudson River watershed for a majority of the county 

before crossing back into the Mohawk River watershed, just before MP QH171. The 125 Study Area

crosses approximately 18 waterway crossings in Schenectady County. Of the 18 crossings, three 

are protected waters (Class C(t) or B or above), and 15 are impaired 303(d) waters. The protected 

and impaired streams include three unnamed tributaries to Norman’s Kill (MPs QH161.5, QH168.25 

and QH170.5). Impaired waterways include the Bonny Brook (MP QH163.5) and 11 unnamed 

tributaries (MPs QH158.75, QH160.5, QH162.75, QH164.5, QH166, QH166.5, QH167.5, QH168.25, 

QH168.5, QH171.25 and QH172.25).

The 125 Study Area remains in the Mohawk River watershed throughout the 6.5 miles in Schoharie 

County. The 125 Study Area crosses approximately nine waterway crossings in Schoharie County. 

Of the nine crossings, none are protected waters (Class C(t) or B or above), and all are impaired 

303(d) waters. The impaired streams include Schoharie Creek (crossings at MPs QH174 and 

QH174.5 to QH175.75), Fly Creek (MPs QH179.5, QH180.25 and QH180.5), and four unnamed 

tributaries to Schoharie Creek (MPs QH174.25, QH176, QH177.5 and QH177.75). 

The 125 Study Area continues within the Mohawk River watershed along the 21.3-miles through 

Montgomery County. The entire county remains within the Mohawk River watershed. There are 

approximately 21 waterway crossings in this county, most of which are tributaries to the Fly Creek, 

Mohawk River or Canajoharie Creek. Of the 21 crossings, one is a protected water (Class C(t) or B 

or above), and all are impaired 303(d) waters. The protected and impaired streams include an 

unnamed tributary to the Mohawk River (MP QH201.5). Impaired waterways in Montgomery 

County, in addition to the streams above, include Fly Creek (MPs QH181 and QH181.25), Flat Creek 

(MP QH188), Canahoharie Creek (MP QH192.5), four unnamed tributaries to Fly Creek (MPs 

QH182, QH182.5, QH185.5 and QH186.5), three unnamed tributaries to Canajoharie Creek (MPs 

QH190.75, QH191 and QH193) and nine other unnamed tributaries to the Mohawk River (MPs 

QH196.25, QH196.5, QH196.75, QH197.5, QH199.25, QH200, QH200.5, QH200.75 and QH201).

The 125 Study Area traverses through rural Herkimer County for approximately 25.3 miles. The 

entire county remains within the Mohawk River watershed. There are approximately 39 waterway 

crossings in Herkimer County. Of the 39 crossings, 15 are protected waters (Class C(t) or B or 

above), and 37 are impaired 303(d) waters. Protected streams include one unnamed tributary to 

the Erie Canal (MP QH223.5) and the unnamed tributary to Starch Factory Creek (MP QH257). The 

impaired and protected streams include Otsquago Creek (MP QH202.5), Ohisa Creek (MP QH206.5), 

Fulmer Creek (MPs QH212 and QH215), two unnamed tributaries to the Mohawk River (MPs 

QH202.5 and QH208), one unnamed tributary to Ohisa Creek (MP QH207), and six unnamed 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page G-49

New York State Department of Transportation 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation 

tributaries to the Erie Canal (MPs QH218, QH221.5, QH222.5, QH222.75, QH223, and QH223.25). In 

addition to the above-mentioned crossings, impaired waterways include two unnamed tributaries 

to Otsquago Creek (MPs QH203.75 and QH204), two unnamed tributaries to Ohisa Creek (MPs 

QH206 and QH206.25), one unnamed tributary to the Mohawk River (MP QH209.5), seven 

unnamed tributaries to Fulmer Creek (MPs QH210.75, QH211.5, QH212.5, QH213.75, QH214.25, 

QH214.5 and QH215.25), eight unnamed tributaries to the Erie Canal (MPs QH216.75, QH217.75, 

QH218.75, QH219.5, QH219.75, QH220, QH220.5 and QH221), one unnamed pond (MP QH224.25), 

one unnamed tributary to Ferguson Creek (MP QH225.5), and two unnamed tributaries to Starch 

Factory Creek (MPs QH226 and QH226.5).

The 125 Study Area extends 22 miles through Oneida County, primarily traversing rural 

properties. The eastern half of Oneida County is within the Mohawk River watershed, but as the 

corridor crosses County Road 26 (Rome Road) (MP QH242) the corridor enters the Oswego

River/Finger Lakes watershed. There are approximately 18 waterway crossings in this county, of 

which seven are protected waters (Class C(t) or B or above) and all are impaired 303(d) waters. 

The protected streams include Sauquoit Creek (MP QH230.25), Mud Creek (MP QH234.5), Sherman 

Brook (MP QH235.5), Oriskany Creek (MP QH236), Sconondoa Creek (MP QH248), one unnamed 

tributary to Sauquoit Creek (MP QH228) and two unnamed tributaries to Mud Creek (MPs QH232.5 

and QH233.25). In addition to the above-mentioned crossings, impaired waterways also include 

Palmer Creek (MP QH229.5), one unnamed tributary to Sauquoit Creek (MP QH230.25), three 

unnamed tributaries to Oriskany Creek (MPs QH237, QH238.25 and QH238.5), three unnamed 

tributaries to Deans Creek (MPs QH239.75, QH240 and QH240.75) and two unnamed tributaries to 

Stony Creek (MPs QH245 and QH246).

The corridor extends 14.6 miles through Madison County, which is situated entirely within the 

Oswego River/Finger Lakes watershed. At MP QH260.5 and QH262.5, the Old Erie Canal flows 

under the corridor, extending south and out of the study area. There are approximately 20 

waterway crossings in this county. Of the 20 crossings, five are protected waters (Class C(t) or B or 

above), and all are impaired 303(d) waters. The protected streams include Canastota Creek (MP 

QH255.75), Owlville Creek (MP QH257.5), Canaseraga Creek (MP QH260), Chittenango Creek (MP 

QH262.25) and one unnamed tributary to Canaseraga Creek (MP QH260.25). In addition to the 

above-mentioned crossings, impaired waterways also include Oneida Creek (MP QH249.5), 

Cowselon Creek (MP QH253), Dutch Settlement Creek (MP QH254.5), the Old Erie Canal, three 

unnamed tributaries to Oneida Creek (MPs QH249.75, QH250 and QH251), an unnamed pond (MP 

QH252.5), five unnamed tributaries to the Old Erie Canal (MPs QH253.5, QH254, QH259, QH262.75 

and QH264) and one unnamed tributary to Owlville Creek (MP QH258.25).

The corridor extends 31.6 miles through Onondaga County, merging with the Empire Corridor 

West 90/110 Study Area just east of Syracuse. At this location it roughly parallels the New York 

State Thruway and skirts the southeast shores of Onondaga Lake in the city of Syracuse. There are 

approximately 20 waterway crossings in this county and all are within the Oswego River/Finger 

Lakes watershed. Of the 20 crossings, five are protected waters (Class C(t) or B or above), and 15 

are impaired 303(d) waters. The protected streams include Pools Brook (MP QH264.75), Lake 

Brook (MP QH266.5), two unnamed tributaries to Pools Brook (MPs QH265 and 265.25), and one 

unnamed tributary to the Seneca River (MP QH292). In addition to the above-mentioned crossings, 

impaired waterways also include Limestone Creek (MP QH268.5), Butternut Creek (MP QH270.5), 

South Branch Ley Creek (MP QH272.5), Barge Canal (MP QH278.5), Geddes Brook (MP QH281.75), 

Dead Man Creek (MP QH289.75), one unnamed tributary to Ley Creek (MP QH274), one unnamed 

tributary to Nine Mile Creek (MP QH286), and two unnamed tributaries to Dead Man Creek (MPs 

QH290 and QH290.75). Three other streams, none of which are protected or impaired, cross the 

Page G-50 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation Tier 1 Draft EIS

corridor in this Onondaga County: the old Erie Canal (MP QH265.75), Nine Mile Creek (MP QH283) 

and three unnamed tributaries to Nine Mile Creek (MPs QH285, QH285.25 and QH286.5).

The 125 Study Area extends 11.1 miles through Cayuga County, north of the Empire Corridor West 

(90/110 Study Area). There are approximately 15 waterway crossings in this county, all of which 

are within the Oswego River/Finger Lakes watershed. Of the 15 crossings, one is a protected water 

(Class C(t) or B or above), and 12 are impaired 303(d) waters. Protected waters include the Seneca 

River (MP QH295.75). In addition to the Seneca River, impaired waterways include Muskrat Creek 

(MP QH297.5), Spring Lake Outlet (MPs QH305.5, QH305.75 and QH306.25), one unnamed pond 

(MPs QH298.5 to QH299) and six unnamed tributaries to the Seneca River (MPs QH299.5, QH300, 

QH301.25, QH301.75, QH303.5, and QH304).

The 125 Study Area extends 35.5 miles through Wayne County. Approximately 98 percent of the 

railroad is located with the Oswego River/Finger Lakes watershed in Wayne County. Just before 

the western border of the county, the railroad enters the Lake Ontario Tributaries watershed (MP 

357). 

There are approximately 43 waterway crossings in Wayne County. Of the 43 crossings, three are 

protected waters (Class C(t) or B or above), and 42 are impaired 303(d) waters. The protected 

streams include Millpond (MP QH310.5), Sodus Creek (MP QH316.5) and an unnamed tributary to 

Mudge Creek (MP QH313.5). In addition to the above-mentioned crossings (with the exception of 

the unnamed tributary to Mudge Creek), impaired waterways also include Butler Creek (MP 

QH308.5), Wolcott Creek (MP QH311.75), Black Creek (MP QH312.5), Red Creek (MPs QH331.75

and QH335.75), an unnamed tributary to the Seneca River (MP QH306.75), an unnamed tributary to 

Butler Creek (MP QH309), two unnamed streams (MPs QH310.5 and QH310.75), two unnamed 

tributaries to Black Creek (MPs QH314.5 and QH315.25), two unnamed tributaries to Sodus Creek 

(MPs QH316 and QH316.75), 10 unnamed tributaries to the Clyde River (MPs QH317.75, QH318.5, 

QH319, QH319.5, QH320.25, QH320.75, QH321.5, QH322.5, QH323 and QH323.75), 10 unnamed 

tributaries to Ganargua Creek (MPs QH324.5, QH325.5, QH326.5, QH327, QH327.25, QH329.5, 

QH333, QH333.5, QH333.75 and QH334.75) and seven unnamed tributaries to Red Creek (MPs 

QH331, QH332.5, QH334, QH337.5, QH338.25, QH338.75 and QH340.5-QH341. 

The 125 Study Area extends 29.5 miles through Monroe County. The county remains in the Lake 

Ontario Tributaries watershed until just east of Rochester where the railroad enters the Genesee 

River watershed, just before crossing the Genesee River (MP QH356). The corridor merges with the 

Empire Corridor West (90/110 Study Area) east of Rochester continuing west through the city 

before the 125 Study Area diverges to the north. The Erie Canal crosses the corridor at MP QH359.

The 125 Study Area crosses approximately 23 waterway crossings in Monroe County, including the 

Erie Canal crossing mentioned above. Of the 23 crossings, 9 are protected waters (Class C(t) or B or 

above), and 18 are impaired 303(d) waters. The protected streams include Thomas Creek (MPs 

QH345.5 to QH346.5), Irondequoit Creek (MP QH347.5), Allen Creek (MP QH350.25), Genesee River 

(MP QH356.75), Erie Canal (MP QH359), three unnamed tributaries to Thomas Creek (MPs 

QH342.5, QH343.5 and QH344) and an unnamed pond (MP QH342.75). In addition to the abovementioned crossings, impaired waterways also include and additional crossing of Irondequoit 

Creek (MP QH351.75), Little Black Creek (MPs QH363.75 and QH365.25), and six unnamed 

tributaries to Black Creek and Little Black Creek (MPs QH363, QH363.5, QH367.25, QH369, QH371 

and QH371.5).

The 125 Study Area traverses approximately 29.7 miles through Genesee County. The county 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page G-51

New York State Department of Transportation 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation 

remains in the Lake Ontario Tributaries watershed until just east of Rochester where the railroad 

enters the Genesee River watershed, just before crossing the Genesee River (MP QH356). There are 

approximately 25 waterway crossings in Genesee County. Of the 25 crossings, one is a protected 

water (Class C(t) or B or above), and 22 are impaired 303(d) waters. The protected stream 

includes Tonawanda Creek (MP QH397.5). In addition to the above-mentioned crossings, impaired 

waterways also include Black Creek (MPs QH375.75 and QH377), Oak Orchard Creek (MP 

QH383.5), Whitney Creek (MP QH395.5), Murder Creek (MP QH400.5), four unnamed tributaries to 

Black Creek (MPs QH372.5, QH373.25, QH374.25 and QH377.25), two unnamed tributaries to 

Spring Creek (MP QH381 and MPs QH382 to QH383), six unnamed tributaries to Oak Orchard Creek 

(MPs QH385, QH385.5, QH386, QH387.25, QH388 and QH389.25), an unnamed pond (MP 

QH389.75), an unnamed tributary to Brinningstool Creek (MP QH393), an unnamed tributary to 

Tonawanda Creek (MPs QH396.5 to QH397) and an unnamed tributary to Murder Creek (MP 

QH401).

The 125 Study Area extends 35.3 miles through Erie County, which is situated entirely within the 

Niagara River/Lake Erie watershed. The eastern segment merges with the Empire Corridor 

West/Niagara Branch (90/110 Study Area) east of Depew. The Empire Corridor then turns north 

to follow the Lake Erie shoreline. The corridor then continues north, roughly parallel to, and within 

50 feet to 2.5 miles east of, the Niagara River, for a distance of 12.7 miles. Of the 10 waterway 

crossings in this county, two are protected waters (Class C(t) or B or above), and six are impaired 

303(d) waters. The protected and impaired waters include Ellicott Creek (MP QH411.5) and 

Scajaquada Creek (MP QDN6). The other impaired waterways include Ransom Creek (MPs 

QH406.5 and QH408.75), Ellicott Creek (MP QDN12.5), and one other unnamed stream (MP 

QDN7.5).

The railroad extends 14.4 miles through Niagara County within the Niagara River/Lake Erie 

watershed. The railroad follows the shoreline of the Niagara River, then extends north towards the 

Niagara Falls International Airport, turning west to terminate at Niagara Falls. Of the nine 

waterway crossings in the county, none are protected waters (Class C(t) or B or above), and eight 

are impaired 303(d) waters. The impaired waterways include Tonawanda Creek/Erie Canal (MP 

QDN13.5), Black Creek (MP QDN18), East Branch of Black Creek (MP QDN18.5), Sawyer Creek (MP 

QDN19.5), Bergholtz Creek (MP QDN20), Cayuga Creek (MP QDN21), Branch Gill Creek (MP 

QDN25) and Gill Creek (MP QDN26).

Page G-52 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation Tier 1 Draft EIS

Exhibit G-6—Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch Surface Water Crossings in the 125 Study 

Area 

County (Appx. 

Mile Post)

River/Stream 

Crossing(Appx. 

Mile Post)

Name

Impaired

(303(d))/ 

Priority Water

Protected

Albany (QH 

143.5-157)

QH 143.5 Hudson River N N

QH 147.75 Krum Kill Y Y

QH 149.75 Krum Kill Y Y

Schenectady (QH 

157-174)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

QH 158.75 Unnamed Tributary to Norman's Kill Y N

QH 160.5 Unnamed Tributary to Norman's Kill Y N

QH 161.5 Unnamed Tributary to Norman's Kill Y Y

QH 162.75 Unnamed Tributary to Norman's Kill Y N

QH 163.5 Bonny Brook Y N

QH 164.5 Unnamed Pond N N

QH 164.5 Unnamed Tributary to Norman's Kill Y N

QH 166 Unnamed Tributary to Norman's Kill Y N

QH 166.5 Unnamed Tributary to Norman's Kill Y N

QH 167.5 Unnamed Tributary to Norman's Kill Y N

QH 168.25 Unnamed Tributary to Norman's Kill Y Y

QH 168.25 Unnamed Tributary to Norman's Kill Y N

QH 168.5 Unnamed Tributary to Norman's Kill Y N

QH 170.5

Unnamed Tributary to Delanson Reservoir and Norman's 

Kill Y Y

QH 171.25 Unnamed Tributary to Schoharie Creek Y N

QH 172 Unnamed Pond N N

QH 172.5 Unnamed Tributary to Schoharie Creek Y N

QH 173.5 Unnamed Pond N N

Schoharie (QH 

174-180.5)

 

 

 

 

QH 174 Schoharie Creek Y N

QH 174.25 Unnamed Tributary to Schoharie Creek Y N

QH 174.5-175.75 Schoharie Creek Y N

QH 176 Unnamed Tributary to Schoharie Creek Y N

QH 177.5 Unnamed Tributary to Schoharie Creek Y N

QH 177.75 Unnamed Tributary to Schoharie Creek Y N

QH 179.5 Fly Creek Y N

QH 180.25 Fly Creek Y N

QH 180.5 Fly Creek Y N

Montgomery (QH 

180.5-202)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

QH 181 Fly Creek Y N

QH 181.25 Fly Creek Y N

QH 182 Unnamed Tributary to Fly Creek Y N

QH 182.5 Unnamed Tributary to Fly Creek Y N

QH 185.5 Unnamed Tributary to Flat Creek Y N

QH 186.5 Unnamed Tributary to Flat Creek Y N

QH 188 Flat Creek Y N

QH 190.75 Unnamed Tributary to Canajoharie Creek Y N

QH 191 Unnamed Tributary to Canajoharie Creek Y N

QH 192.5 Canajoharie Creek Y N

QH 193 Unnamed Tributary to Canajoharie Creek Y N

QH 196.25 Unnamed Tributary to Otsquago Creek/Mohawk River Y N

QH 196.5 Unnamed Tributary to Otsquago Creek/Mohawk River Y N

QH 196.75 Unnamed Tributary to Otsquago Creek/Mohawk River Y N

QH 197.5 Unnamed Tributary to Otsquago Creek/Mohawk River Y N

QH 199.25 Unnamed Tributary to Otsquago Creek/Mohawk River Y N

QH 200 Unnamed Tributary to Otsquago Creek/Mohawk River Y N

QH 200.5 Unnamed Tributary to Otsquago Creek/Mohawk River Y N

QH 200.75 Unnamed Tributary to Otsquago Creek/Mohawk River Y N

QH 201 Unnamed Tributary to Otsquago Creek/Mohawk River Y N

QH 201.5 Unnamed Tributary to Otsquago Creek/Mohawk River Y Y

Herkimer (QH 

202-227.5)

 

 

 

 

QH 202.5 Unnamed Tributary to Otsquago Creek/Mohawk River Y Y

QH 202.5 Otsquago Creek Y Y

QH 203.75 Unnamed Tributary to Otsquago Creek/Mohawk River Y N

QH 204 Unnamed Tributary to Otsquago Creek/Mohawk River Y N

QH 206 Unnamed Tributary to Ohisa Creek Y N

QH 206.25 Unnamed Tributary to Ohisa Creek Y N

QH 206.5 Ohisa Creek Y Y

QH 207 Unnamed Tributary to Ohisa Creek Y Y

QH 208 Unnamed Tributary to Nowadaga Creek/Mohawk River Y Y

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page G-53

New York State Department of Transportation 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation 

Exhibit G-6—Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch Surface Water Crossings in the 125 Study 

Area 

County (Appx. 

Mile Post)

River/Stream 

Crossing(Appx. 

Mile Post)

Name

Impaired

(303(d))/ 

Priority Water

Protected

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

QH 209.5 Unnamed Tributary to Nowadaga Creek/Mohawk River Y N

QH 210.75 Unnamed Tributary to Fulmer Creek Y N

QH 211.5 Unnamed Tributary to Fulmer Creek Y N

QH 212 Fulmer Creek Y Y

QH 212.5 Unnamed Tributary to Fulmer Creek Y N

QH 213.74 Unnamed Tributary to Fulmer Creek Y N

QH 214.25 Unnamed Tributary to Fulmer Creek Y N

QH 214.5 Unnamed Tributary to Fulmer Creek Y N

QH 215 Fulmer Creek Y Y

QH 215.25 Unnamed Tributary to Fulmer Creek Y N

QH 216.75 Unnamed Tributary to Erie Canal Y N

QH 217.75 Unnamed Tributary to Erie Canal Y N

QH 218 Unnamed Tributary to Erie Canal Y Y

QH 218.75 Unnamed Tributary to Erie Canal Y N

QH 219.5 Unnamed Tributary to Erie Canal Y N

QH 219.75 Unnamed Tributary to Erie Canal Y N

QH 220 Unnamed Tributary to Erie Canal Y N

QH 220.5 Unnamed Tributary to Erie Canal Y N

QH 221 Unnamed Tributary to Moyer Creek/Erie Canal Y N

QH 221.5 Unnamed Tributary to Moyer Creek/Erie Canal Y Y

QH 222.5 Unnamed Tributary to Moyer Creek/Erie Canal Y Y

QH 222.75 Unnamed Tributary to Moyer Creek/Erie Canal Y Y

QH 223 Unnamed Tributary to Moyer Creek/Erie Canal Y Y

QH 223.25 Unnamed Tributary to Moyer Creek/Erie Canal Y Y

QH 223.5 Unnamed Tributary to Moyer Creek/Erie Canal N Y

QH 224.25 Unnamed Pond Y N

QH 225.5 Unnamed Tributary to Ferguson Creek Y N

QH 226 Unnamed Tributary to Starch Factory Creek Y N

QH226.5 Unnamed Tributary to Starch Factory Creek Y N

QH 227 Unnamed Tributary to Starch Factory Creek N Y

Oneida (QH 

227.5-249)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

QH 228 Unnamed Tributary to Sauquoit Creek Y Y

QH 229.5 Palmer Creek Y N

QH 230.25 Sauquoit Creek Y Y

QH 230.25 Unnamed Tributary to Sauquoit Creek Y N

QH 232.5 Unnamed Tributary to Mud Creek Y Y

QH 233.25 Unnamed Tributary to Mud Creek Y Y

QH 234.5 Mud Creek Y N

QH 235.5 Sherman Brook Y Y

QH 236 Oriskany Creek Y Y

QH 237 Unnamed Tributary to Oriskany Creek Y N

QH 238.25 Unnamed Tributary to Oriskany Creek Y N

QH 238.5 Unnamed Tributary to Oriskany Creek Y N

QH 239.75 Unnamed Tributary to Deans Creek Y N

QH 240 Unnamed Tributary to Deans Creek Y N

QH 240.75 Unnamed Tributary to Deans Creek Y N

QH 245 Unnamed Tributary to Stony Creek Y N

QH 246 Unnamed Tributary to Stony Creek Y N

QH 248 Sconondoa Creek Y Y

Madison (QH 

249-264)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

QH 249.5 Oneida Creek Y N

QH 249.75 Unnamed Tributary to Oneida Creek Y N

QH 250 Unnamed Tributary to Oneida Creek Y N

QH 251 Unnamed Tributary to Oneida Creek Y N

QH 252.5 Unnamed Pond Y N

QH 253 Cowselon Creek Y N

QH 253.5 Unnamed Tributary to Old Erie Canal Y N

QH 254 Unnamed Tributary to Old Erie Canal Y N

QH 254.5 Dutch Settlement Creek Y N

QH 255.75 Canastota Creek Y (MS4) Y

QH 257.5 Owlville Creek Y Y

QH 258.25 Unnamed Tributary Owlville Creek Y N

QH 259 Unnamed Tributary to Old Erie Canal Y N

Page G-54 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation Tier 1 Draft EIS

Exhibit G-6—Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch Surface Water Crossings in the 125 Study 

Area 

County (Appx. 

Mile Post)

River/Stream 

Crossing(Appx. 

Mile Post)

Name

Impaired

(303(d))/ 

Priority Water

Protected

 

 

 

QH 260 Unnamed Tributary to Canaseraga Creek Y Y

QH 260.25 Canaseraga Creek Y Y

QH 260.5 Old Erie Canal Y N

QH 262.25 Chittenango Creek Y Y

QH 262.5 Old Erie Canal Y N

QH 262.75 Unnamed Tributary to Old Erie Canal Y N

QH 264 Unnamed Tributary to Old Erie Canal Y N

Onondaga (QH 

264-295.5)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

QH 264.75 Pools Brook Y Y

QH 265 Unnamed Tributary to Pools Brook Y Y

QH 265.25 Unnamed Tributary to Pools Brook Y Y

QH 265.75 Old Erie Canal N N

QH 266.5 Lake Brook Y Y

QH 268.5 Limestone Creek Y N

QH 270.5 Butternut Creek Y N

QH 272.75 South Branch Ley Creek Y (C), (MS4) N

QH 274 Unnamed Tributary to Ley Creek Y (C), (MS4) N

QH 278.5 Barge Canal Y N

QH 281.75 Geddes Brook Y N

QH 283 Nine Mile Creek Y (C), (MS4) N

QH 285 Unnamed Tributary to Nine Mile Creek N N

QH 285.25 Unnamed Tributary to Nine Mile Creek Y (C), (MS4) N

QH 286 Unnamed Tributary to Nine Mile Creek Y (C), (MS4) N

QH 286.5 Unnamed Tributary to Nine Mile Creek N N

QH 289.75 Dead Man Creek Y N

QH 290 Unnamed Tributary to Dead Man Creek Y N

QH 290.75 Unnamed Tributary to Dead Man Creek Y N

QH 292 Unnamed Tributary to Seneca River Y Y

Cayuga (QH 295-

306.5)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

QH 295.75 Seneca River Y Y

QH 297.5 Muskrat Creek Y N

QH 298.5-299 Unnamed Pond Y N

QH 299.25 Unnamed Pond N N

QH 299.5 Unnamed Tributary to Seneca River Y N

QH 300 Unnamed Tributary to Seneca River Y N

QH 301.25 Unnamed Tributary to Seneca River Y N

QH 301.75 Unnamed Tributary to Seneca River Y N

QH 302.25 Unnamed Tributary to Seneca River N N

QH 303.5 Unnamed Tributary to Seneca River Y N

QH 304 Unnamed Tributary to Seneca River Y N

QH 305.5 Spring Lake Outlet Y N

QH 305.75 Spring Lake Outlet Y N

QH 306.25 Spring Lake Outlet Y N

QH 306.5 Unnamed Tributary to Spring Lake Outlet N N

Wayne (QH 

306.5-342)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

QH 306.75 Unnamed Tributary to Seneca River Y N

QH 308.5 Butler Creek Y N

QH 309 Unnamed Tributary to Butler Creek Y N

QH 310.5 Millpond Y Y

QH 310.5 Unnamed Tributary Y N

QH 310.75 Unnamed Tributary Y N

QH 311.75 Wolcott Creek Y N

QH 312.5 Black Creek Y N

QH 313.5 Unnamed Tributary to Mudge Creek N Y

QH 314.5 Unnamed Tributary to Black Creek Y N

QH 315.25 Unnamed Tributary to Black Creek Y N

QH 316 Unnamed Tributary to Sodus Creek Y N

QH 316.5 Sodus Creek Y Y

QH 316.75 Unnamed Tributary to Sodus Creek Y N

QH 317.75 Unnamed Tributary to Clyde River Y N

QH 318.5 Unnamed Tributary to Clyde River Y N

QH 319 Unnamed Tributary to Clyde River Y N

QH 319.5 Unnamed Tributary to Clyde River Y N

QH 320.25 Unnamed Tributary to Clyde River Y N

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page G-55

New York State Department of Transportation 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation 

Exhibit G-6—Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch Surface Water Crossings in the 125 Study 

Area 

County (Appx. 

Mile Post)

River/Stream 

Crossing(Appx. 

Mile Post)

Name

Impaired

(303(d))/ 

Priority Water

Protected

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

QH 320.75 Unnamed Tributary to Clyde River Y N

QH 321.5 Unnamed Tributary to Clyde River Y N

QH 322.5 Unnamed Tributary to Clyde River Y N

QH 323 Unnamed Tributary to Clyde River Y N

QH 323.75 Unnamed Tributary to Clyde River Y N

QH 324.5 Unnamed Tributary to Ganargua Creek Y N

QH 325.5 Unnamed Tributary to Ganargua Creek Y N

QH 326.5 Unnamed Tributary to Ganargua Creek Y N

QH 327 Unnamed Tributary to Ganargua Creek Y N

QH 327.25 Unnamed Tributary to Ganargua Creek Y N

QH 329.5 Unnamed Tributary to Ganargua Creek Y N

QH 331 Unnamed Tributary to Red Creek Y N

QH 331.75 Red Creek Y N

QH 332.5 Unnamed Tributary to Red Creek Y N

QH 333 Unnamed Tributary to Ganargua Creek Y N

QH 333.5 Unnamed Tributary to Ganargua Creek Y N

QH 333.75 Unnamed Tributary to Ganargua Creek Y N

QH 334 Unnamed Tributary to Red Creek Y N

QH 334.75 Unnamed Tributary to Ganargua Creek Y N

QH 335.75 Red Creek Y N

QH 337.5 Unnamed Tributary to Red Creek Y N

QH 338.25 Unnamed Tributary to Red Creek Y N

QH 338.75 Unnamed Tributary to Red Creek Y N

QH 340.5-341 Unnamed Tributary to Red Creek Y N

Monroe (QH 342-

371.5)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

QH 342.5 Unnamed Tributary to Thomas Creek Y (C), (MS4) Y

QH 342.75 Unnamed Pond Y Y

QH 343.5 Unnamed Tributary to Thomas Creek Y (C), (MS4) Y

QH 344 Unnamed Tributary to Thomas Creek Y (C), (MS4) Y

QH 345.5-346.5 Thomas Creek Y (C), (MS4) Y

QH 347.5 Irondequoit Creek Y (C), (MS4) Y

QH 350.25 Allen Creek Y Y

QH 351.75 Irondequoit Creek Y (C), (MS4) N

QH 356.75 Genesee River Y (C), (MS4) Y

QH 359 Erie Canal Y Y

QH 360.5 Unnamed Tributary to Erie Canal N N

QH 362 Unnamed Tributary to Little Black Creek N N

QH 363 Unnamed Tributary to Little Black Creek Y N

QH 363.5 Unnamed Tributary to Little Black Creek Y N

QH 363.75 Little Black Creek Y N

QH 365.25 Little Black Creek Y N

QH 367 Little Black Creek N N

QH 367.25 Unnamed Tributary to Little Black Creek Y N

QH 367.5 Unnamed Tributary to Little Black Creek N N

QH 368.5 Unnamed Tributary to Black Creek N N

QH 369 Unnamed Tributary to Black Creek Y (C), (MS4) N

QH 371 Unnamed Tributary to Black Creek Y (C), (MS4) N

QH 371.5 Black Creek Tributary Y (C), (MS4) N

Genesee (QH 

371.5-401.5)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

QH 372.5 Unnamed Tributary to Black Creek Y (C), (MS4) N

QH 373.25 Unnamed Tributary to Black Creek Y (C), (MS4) N

QH 374.25 Unnamed Tributary to Black Creek Y (C), (MS4) N

QH 375.75 Black Creek Y (C), (MS4) N

QH 377 Black Creek Y (C), (MS4) N

QH 377.25 Unnamed Tributary to Black Creek Y (C), (MS4) N

QH 381 Unnamed Tributary to Spring Creek Y N

QH 381.5 Unnamed Tributary to Spring Creek N N

QH 382-383 Unnamed Tributary to Spring Creek Y N

QH 383.5 Oak Orchard Creek Y N

QH 385 Unnamed Tributary to Oak Orchard Creek Y N

QH 385.5 Unnamed Tributary to Oak Orchard Creek Y N

QH 386 Unnamed Tributary to Oak Orchard Creek Y N

QH 387.25 Unnamed Tributary to Oak Orchard Creek Y N

Page G-56 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation Tier 1 Draft EIS

Exhibit G-6—Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch Surface Water Crossings in the 125 Study 

Area 

County (Appx. 

Mile Post)

River/Stream 

Crossing(Appx. 

Mile Post)

Name

Impaired

(303(d))/ 

Priority Water

Protected

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

QH 388 Unnamed Tributary to Oak Orchard Creek Y N

QH 389.25 Unnamed Tributary to Oak Orchard Creek Y N

QH 389.75 Unnamed Pond Y N

QH 390.5 Unnamed Pond N N

QH 393 Unnamed Tributary to Brinningstool Creek Y N

QH 395.5 Whitney Creek Y N

QH 395.75 Unnamed Pond N N

QH 396.5-397 Unnamed Tributary to Tonawanda Creek Y (C), (MS4) N

QH 397.5 Tonawanda Creek Y (C), (MS4) Y

QH 400.5 Murder Creek Y N

QH 401 Unnamed Tributary to Murder Creek Y N

Erie (QH 401.5-

QDN 13)

 

 

 

 

 

 

QH 406.5 Ransom Creek Y (MS4) N

QH 408.75 Ransom Creek Y (MS4) N

QH 409 Unnamed Pond N N

QH 409.25 Unnamed Pond N N

QH 409.5 Unnamed Pond N N

QH 411.5 Ellicott Creek Y (C), (MS4) Y

QDN 6 Scajaquada Creek Y (MS4) Y

QDN 7.5 Unnamed Tributary to Niagara River Y N

QDN 12 Unnamed Tributary to Ellicott Creek N N

QDN 12.5 Ellicott Creek Y (C), (MS4) N

Niagara 

(QDN13-

QDN28)

 

 

 

 

QDN 13.5 Tonawanda Creek/Erie Canal Y N

QDN 14.5 Unnamed Tributary to Niagara River N N

QDN 18 Black Creek Y N

QDN 18.5 East Branch of Black Creek Y N

QDN 19.5 Sawyer Creek Y N

QDN 20 Bergholtz Creek Y (C), (MS4) N

QDN 21 Cayuga Creek Y N

QDN 25 Branch Gill Creek Y N

QDN 26 Gill Creek Y N

Notes: Appx.= Approximate, Y = Yes, N = No

(C) = 303(d) segments impaired by pollutants related to construction, as specified in Appendix E of the NYSDEC SPDES General 

Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activity (Permit No. GP-0-10-001), January 29, 2010.

(MS4) = 303(d) segments impaired by pollutants of concern for municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s), as specified in 

Appendix 2 of the SPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from MS4s (Permit No. GP-0-10-002), October 14, 2011.

The 125 Study Area is used for analysis of Alternative 125 and consists of portions of the existing Empire Corridor and new 

alignment and is 451 miles long. The study area width is defined as being within 300 feet of the corridor centerline. 

Source: NY GIS Clearinghouse, 2011, NYSDEC GIS Data, 2011

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page G-57

New York State Department of Transportation 
New York

New York

New Jersey

Hudson River

Harlem River

Yonkers

Poughkeepsie

New York Penn Station

§ ̈¦87 § ̈¦84

§ ̈¦287

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦280

§ ̈¦78

§ ̈¦95

§ ̈¦495

B e r g e n B e r g e n

E s s e x E s s e x

U n i o n U n i o n

P a s s a i c P a s s a i c

H u d s o n H u d s o n

M o r r i s M o r r i s

O r a n g e O r a n g e

U l s t e r U l s t e r

R o c k l a n d R o c k l a n d

D u t c h e s s D u t c h e s s

W e s t c h e s t e r W e s t c h e s t e r

P u t n a m P u t n a m

K i n g s K i n g s

Q u e e n s Q u e e n s

B r o n x B r o n x

N e w Y o r k N e w Y o r k

R i c h m o n d R i c h m o n d

New York

Ramapo

Tuxedo

Cortlandt

Fishkill

Newburgh

Gardiner

Philipstown

Yorktown

Clarkstown

Plattekill

Montgomery

La Grange

East Fishkill

Woodbury

Lloyd

Highlands

Kent

Cornwall

Greenburgh

New Windsor

Monroe

Stony Point

Wappinger

Haverstraw

Shawangunk

Mount Pleasant

Putnam Valley

Orangetown

Yonkers

Blooming Grove

Chester

Poughkeepsie

Marlborough

Ossining

Hamptonburgh

New Castle

Somers

Crawford

New Rochelle

New Paltz

Beacon

Peekskill

Scarsdale

Rochester

Eastchester

Mount Vernon

Pelham

Beekman

North Hempstead

Wallkill

Copyright:© 2009 ESRI

Hudson River

Hudson River

New York

Connecticut

Putnam

Acres

Hudson

Rhinecliff

Poughkeepsie

Albany-Rensselaer

§ ̈¦87

§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦787

§ ̈¦890

A l b a n y A l b a n y

D u t c h e s s D u t c h e s s

C o l u m b i a C o l u m b i a

U l s t e r U l s t e r

G r e e n e G r e e n e

R e n s s e l a e r R e n s s e l a e r

Cairo

Catskill

Ghent

Milan

Schodack

Saugerties

Colonie

Westerlo

Stanford

Lloyd

Esopus

Clinton

Gallatin

Guilderland

Coeymans

Washington

Ulster

Claverack

Bethlehem

Chatham

New Scotland

Red Hook

Athens

Berne

Taghkanic

Hyde Park

Greenville

Rhinebeck

Ancram

Coxsackie

Livingston

Nassau

New Baltimore

Hunter

Pine Plains

Dover

Brunswick

Knox

Union Vale La Grange

Albany

Kinderhook

Copake

Stuyvesant

Amenia

Pleasant Valley

New Paltz

Clermont

Greenport

Troy

East Greenbush

Stockport

Northeast

North GreenbushPoestenkill

Germantown

Woodstock

Kingston

Poughkeepsie

Durham

Princetown

Plattekill

Jewett

Rensselaer

Hudson

Cohoes

Watervliet

Marbletown

Copyright:© 2009 ESRI

PENNSYLVANIA

ONTARIO

(CANADA)

NEW YORK

6 5 4 3

1

2

KEY MAP

0 2.5 5 10

Miles

MAP 1 MAP 2

I Tier 1 EIS

High Speed Rail

Empire Corridor Program

Surface Waters/Floodplains

Source: The Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA), 2011; New York State GIS

Amtrak Station

Existing Empire Corridor

Alternative 125 Corridor

FEMA 100-Year Flood Zone

River, Pond or Lake

Alt. 125 as shown is a potential corridor used to analyze the potential operating characteristics, environmental impacts and cost for this speed (125 mph) threshold.

*

*

Exhibit G-7
Hudson River

Mohawk River/Erie Canal

West Canada Creek

East Canada Creek

Schoharie Creek

Amsterdam

Schenectady

Albany-Rensselaer

§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦88

§ ̈¦87

§ ̈¦787

§ ̈¦890

F u l t o n F u l t o n

O t s e g o O t s e g o

S a r a t o g a S a r a t o g a H e r k i m e r H e r k i m e r

A l b a n y A l b a n y

M o n t g o m e r y M o n t g o m e r y

S c h o h a r i e S c h o h a r i e

S c h e n e c t a d y S c h e n e c t a d y

R e n s s e l a e r R e n s s e l a e r

Root

Glen

Otsego

Knox

Colonie

Florida

Minden

Johnstown

Mayfield

Galway

Stark

Duanesburg

Greenfield

Glenville

Malta

Milton

Berne

Sharon

Warren

Palatine

Guilderland

Caroga

Fairfield

Oppenheim

Seward

Perth

Hartwick

Carlisle

Ephratah

Wright

Mohawk

Wilton

Springfield

Stratford

Providence

Charleston

Bleecker

Danube

Westford

Ballston

Salisbury

Canajoharie

Columbia

Exeter

Richfield

Roseboom

Decatur

Fulton Bethlehem

Middlefield

Clifton Park

Charlton

Broadalbin

Herkimer

Rotterdam

Manheim

Stillwater

Albany

Cobleskill

Cherry Valley

Schuyler

Schoharie

Middleburgh

New Scotland

Amsterdam

German Flatts

Newport

Little Falls

Princetown

Richmondville

Worcester

Esperance

Saratoga Springs

Niskayuna

St Johnsville

Summit

Edinburg

Northampton

Schenectady

Waterford

Cohoes

Gloversville

Milford Maryland

Winfield

Copyright:© 2009 ESRI

Oneida

Lake Erie Canal

Erie Canal

Mohawk River

Chittenango Creek

Onondaga

Lake

Rome

Syracuse § ̈¦90

§ ̈¦81

§ ̈¦690

§ ̈¦481

§ ̈¦790

O n e i d a O n e i d a

O n o n d a g a O n o n d a g a

M a d i s o n M a d i s o n

O s w e g o O s w e g o

C a y u g a C a y u g a O t s e g o O t s e g o

C o r t l a n d C o r t l a n d

H e r k i m e r H e r k i m e r

Vienna Rome

Clay

Verona

Sullivan

Constantia

Niles

Pompey

Lee

Eaton

Cicero

Brookfield

Lysander

Fabius

Manlius

Nelson

Floyd

Onondaga Paris

Lenox

Trenton

Marcy

Tully

Vernon

Madison

Granby

Otisco

Elbridge

Fenner

La Fayette

Lebanon Hamilton

Kirkland

Camillus

Frankfort

Marshall

Schroeppel

Van Buren

Western

Russia

Lincoln

Litchfield

Plainfield

Hastings

Ira

Annsville

Camden

Sangerfield

Steuben

Moravia Scott Preble

Cazenovia

De Witt

Spafford

Skaneateles

Deerfield

Marcellus

Augusta

Exeter

Schuyler

Utica Oneida

Westmoreland

Winfield

Syracuse

Georgetown

Stockbridge

DeRuyter

Salina

Smithfield

West Monroe

Whitestown

Cuyler

Bridgewater

Volney

New Hartford

Cato

Owasco

Sennett

Geddes

Richfield

Truxton Sempronius

Remsen

Columbia

Palermo

Edmeston

Fulton

Sherrill

Amboy

Copyright:© 2009 ESRI

PENNSYLVANIA

ONTARIO

(CANADA)

NEW YORK

6 5 4 3

1

2

KEY MAP

MAP 4

MAP 3

I 0 5 10 2.5

Miles

Tier 1 EIS

High Speed Rail

Empire Corridor Program

Surface Waters/Floodplains

Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA), 2011; New York State GIS

Amtrak Station

Existing Empire Corridor

Alternative 125 Corridor

FEMA 100-Year Flood Zone

River, Pond or Lake

Old Erie Canal

Alt. 125 as shown is a potential corridor used to analyze the potential operating characteristics, environmental impacts and cost for this speed (125 mph) threshold.

*

*

Exhibit G-7
Lake

Ontario

Erie Canal

Seneca River

Genesee River

Erie Canal

Old Erie Canal

Rochester

§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦390

§ ̈¦490 § ̈¦590

W a y n e W a y n e

M o n r o e M o n r o e

O n t a r i o O n t a r i o

C a y u g a C a y u g a

S e n e c a S e n e c a

L i v i n g s t o n L i v i n g s t o n

O s w e g o O s w e g o

Ira

Sodus

Galen

Phelps

Chili

Fayette

Cato

Tyre

Greece

Huron

Arcadia

Parma

Rose

Lima

Lyons

Butler

Victor

Sterling

Rush

Ogden

Wolcott

Hannibal

Riga

Mendon

Victory

York

Penfield

Seneca

Ontario

Macedon

Marion

Webster

Perinton Palmyra

Junius

Henrietta

Hopewell

Aurelius

Conquest

Sennett

Walworth

Caledonia

Rochester

Livonia

Brutus

Gorham

Fleming

Geneseo Bristol

Mentz

Hamlin

Wheatland

Gates

Throop

Oswego

Niles

Avon

Canandaigua

Savannah

Farmington Manchester

Williamson

Owasco

Pittsford

Waterloo

Springport

Seneca Falls

East Bloomfield

Richmond

Brighton

Montezuma

West Bloomfield

Geneva

Scipio

Auburn

Lysander

Irondequoit

East Rochester

Copyright:© 2009 ESRI

Ontario

(Canada)

New York

(United States)

Lake

Erie

Lake

Ontario

Lake

Ontario

Erie Canal/Tonawanda Creek

Niagara River

Buffalo-Depew

Niagara Falls

Buffalo-Exchange Street

§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦190 § ̈¦490

§ ̈¦290

E r i e E r i e

N i a g a r a N i a g a r a

G e n e s e e G e n e s e e

O r l e a n s O r l e a n s

M o n r o e M o n r o e

W y o m i n g W y o m i n g

L i v i n g s t o n L i v i n g s t o n

E r i e E r i e

York

Barre Royalton

Elba

Riga

Darien

Batavia

Wilson

Buffalo

Elma

Shelby

Amherst

Hartland

Attica

Clarence

Le Roy

Alabama

Alden

Hamlin

Newstead

Porter Newfane

Byron

Ridgeway

Gaines

Bennington

Cambria

Pavilion

Murray

Bethany

Sweden

Pembroke

Marilla

Stafford

Lancaster

Bergen

Clarkson

Alexander

Clarendon

Carlton

Perry

Yates Kendall

Ogden

Caledonia

Covington

Aurora Wales Sheldon Leicester

Somerset

Warsaw

Lewiston Lockport Albion

Middlebury

Wheatfield Oakfield

Pendleton

Grand Island

Hamburg

Cheektowaga

Orchard Park

Tonawanda

West Seneca

Wheatland

Niagara Falls

Niagara

Orangeville

North Tonawanda

Lackawanna

Copyright:© 2009 ESRI

PENNSYLVANIA

ONTARIO

(CANADA)

NEW YORK

6 5 4 3

1

2

KEY MAP

I 0 5 10 2.5

Miles

Tier 1 EIS

High Speed Rail

Empire Corridor Program

MAP 6

MAP 5

Surface Waters/Floodplains

Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA), 2011; New York State GIS

Amtrak Station

Existing Empire Corridor

Alternative 125 Corridor

FEMA 100-Year Flood Zone

River, Pond or Lake

Alt. 125 as shown is a potential corridor used to analyze the potential operating characteristics, environmental impacts and cost for this speed (125 mph) threshold.

*

*

Exhibit G-7
Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation Tier 1 Draft EIS

7. Navigable Waters

7.1 Empire Corridor South

All of the Build alternatives follow the existing Empire Corridor South for the majority of its length, 

deviating only in Rensselaer County, where Alternative 125 splits off 1.6 miles south of where the 

existing Empire Corridor (the 90/110 Study Area) turns to the west. The Hudson River, a navigable 

water, is within the 300-foot railroad buffer in all counties in the Empire Corridor South segment. 

There are several navigable tributaries and inlets of the Hudson River that the railroad crosses. The 

Spuyten Duyvil railroad bridge crosses over the Harlem River at MP 10. Two Metro-North railroad 

bridges in Westchester County pass over the Hudson River: Croton Bay (MPs 32.5 to 33) and 

Peekskill Bay (MP 42). The New Hamburg Railroad Bridge crosses over Wappinger Creek at MP 65.

7.2 Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch: 90/110 Study Area

There are several navigable waterways along the 322 miles of the Empire Corridor West/Niagara 

Branch 90/110 Study Area. The Erie Canal and Mohawk River and other navigable waterways, and 

crossings of navigable waters, are described in the following section. 

The railroad crosses the Hudson River over the Livingston Avenue Railroad bridge as it passes into 

Albany County. The Hudson River at this location is a navigable water, and the bridge is permitted 

by the U.S. Coast Guard. 

The Erie Canal is part of the Mohawk River in Schenectady County. This waterway meanders in 

and out of the 300-foot buffer and crosses the railroad, as it passes west of the city of Schenectady 

(MP 160).

The Mohawk River and Erie Canal meander through the 300-foot buffer area as a single water 

channel in Montgomery County and the eastern part of Herkimer County, never crossing the 

railroad alignment. The Mohawk River and Erie Canal split at the town of Frankfort (MP 228). The 

Mohawk River and Erie Canal parallel the south side of the railroad before crossing the railroad and 

heading north. The Erie Canal crosses the railroad at approximately MP 231.5 and the Mohawk 

River crosses at approximately MP 234. 

The Mohawk River and the Erie Canal continue into Oneida County, with both located north of the 

railroad. The Mohawk River crosses the railroad, extending from the north to the south side, just 

east of Rome (MP 248.5). 

There are no navigable waters in Madison County. In Onondaga County, there are two navigable 

waterways: the Barge Canal and Onondaga Lake. Onondaga Lake parallels the north side of the 

railroad alignment for a small section through Syracuse. The Barge Canal crosses the alignment in 

this same area (MP 292) and connects to Onondaga Lake.

There are no navigable waters in the study area in Cayuga County. The Erie Canal is the only 

navigable water in the study area in Wayne County, meandering in and out of the 300-foot buffer 

within this county and crossing the railroad three times. It crosses once as part of the Clyde River 

near the town of Clyde (MPs 328 to 330), once near the town of Lyons (MP 335) and once just 

before Newark (MP 339.5).

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page G-61

New York State Department of Transportation 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation 

The Genesee River and the Erie Canal are the two navigable waters within the study area in 

Monroe County. The Genesee River crosses the rail alignment in the city of Rochester (MP 371.5). 

The Erie Canal crosses the rail alignment just west of Rochester (MP 374.5). There are no navigable 

waters in the study area in Genesee County. 

There are three navigable waters in the study area in Erie County. Two of these, Ellicott Creek and 

Scajaquada Creek, cross the railroad. The third, Lake Erie, is located within the 300-foot buffer on 

the west side of the railroad. Ellicott Creek crosses the rail alignment twice, once before entering 

Buffalo (MP 422.5) and a second time in Tonawanda (MP QDN12.5). Scajaquada Creek crosses the 

railroad once in Buffalo (MP QDN6). 

There is one navigable water in Niagara County, Tonawanda Creek. The creek is also part of the 

Erie Canal and crosses the railroad in the center of Tonawanda (MP QDN13.5). 

7.3 Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch: 125 Study Area

There are several navigable waterways along the 308 miles of the Empire Corridor West/Niagara 

Branch 125 Study Area. The corridor crosses the Hudson River at MP QH143.5 as it passes into 

Albany County. The Hudson River at this location is a navigable water. 

There are no navigable waters in the study area through Schenectady, Schoharie, Montgomery, 

Herkimer, Oneida or Madison counties. The 125 Study Area bypasses several crossings of the 

Mohawk River/Erie Canal along the Empire Corridor West in Schenectady, Montgomery, Herkimer, 

and Oneida counties. 

In Onondaga County, there are two navigable waterways: Onondaga Lake and the Barge Canal. 

Onondaga Lake parallels the north side of the corridor for a small section through Syracuse. The 

Barge Canal crosses the corridor in this same area (MP QH278.5) and connects to Onondaga Lake.

There are no navigable waters in the study area in Cayuga or Wayne Counties. The 125 Study 

Area bypasses several crossings of the Erie Canal and Clyde River along the Empire Corridor West 

in Wayne County. The Genesee River and the Erie Canal are two navigable waters within the study 

area in Monroe County. 

The Genesee River crosses the corridor in the city of Rochester (MP QH356.75). The Erie Canal 

crosses the corridor just west of Rochester (MP QH359). There are no navigable waters in the 

study area in Genesee County. 

There are three navigable waters in the study area in Erie County. Two of these, Ellicott Creek and 

Scajaquada Creek, cross the alignment. The third, Lake Erie, is located within the 300-foot buffer on 

the west side of the alignment. Ellicott Creek crosses the rail alignment twice, once before entering 

Buffalo (MP 411.5) and a second time in Tonawanda (MP QDN12.5). Scajaquada Creek crosses the 

railroad once in Buffalo (MP QDN6). 

There is one navigable water in Niagara County, Tonawanda Creek. The creek is also part of the 

Erie Canal and crosses the railroad in the center of Tonawanda (MP QDN13.5). 

Page G-62 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation Tier 1 Draft EIS

8. Floodplains

8.1 Empire Corridor South

The Empire Corridor South, from New York City to Rensselaer, extends 142 miles and in many 

locations closely follows the east bank of the Hudson River. All of the Build alternatives follow the 

existing Empire Corridor South for the majority of its length, deviating only in Rensselaer County, 

where the 125 Study Area splits off 1.6 miles south of where the existing Empire Corridor (the 

90/110 Study Area) turns to the west. This corridor segment includes the study area counties of 

New York County (Manhattan Borough), Bronx County, Westchester County, Putnam County, 

Dutchess County, Columbia County, and Rensselaer County. The entire corridor in this segment is 

located in the Lower Hudson River Watershed. 

The rail corridor extends approximately 10.3 miles north through Manhattan (New York County)

from its southern terminus, daylighting from a rail tunnel just north of Milepost 5. The Hudson 

River is generally within 150 to 300 feet of the western side of the railroad for the majority of the 

county and floodplains associated with the Hudson River are located within 300 feet of the rail 

centerline; however, GIS data was not available. 

After crossing the Harlem River, the railroad enters and extends through Bronx County after 

crossing the Harlem River for a distance of approximately 2.6 miles. There are no waterway 

crossings in Bronx County; however, the corridor closely adjoins the west bank of the Hudson River 

throughout the county and 100-year floodplains are located within 300 feet of the railroad 

centerline. GIS mapping was not available for this county.

The railroad continues to closely adjoin the Hudson River through 31.5 miles of the rail corridor as 

it extends through Westchester County, largely remaining within 50 to 500 feet of the river. There 

are approximately 703 acres of mapped 100-year floodplains within 300 feet of the rail centerline, 

associated with the Hudson River and its tributaries (encountered at 23 waterway crossings) in this 

county. 

The railroad traverses through 9.3 miles of Putnam County, largely remaining within 50 to 500 

feet of the Hudson River. The majority of the rail corridor remains in close proximity to the Hudson 

River, with the exception of a 1-mile section south of Cold Springs (MPs 51 to 52). There are 

approximately 12 waterway crossings in this county, including several bridges over the inlets and 

coves of the Hudson River (MPs 51, 52 [Foundry Cove], and 53). Digital floodplain GIS data was not 

available for Putnam County; however, there are likely acres of 100-year floodplains within 300 

feet of the railroad centerline associated with the Hudson River and its tributaries.

The rail corridor traverses approximately 45.6 miles across Dutchess County. The majority of the 

railroad is within 50 to 300 feet of the Hudson River and crosses several coves and inlets of the 

river as it passes through the county. There are approximately 1,766 acres of 100-year floodplains 

mapped within 300 feet of the rail centerline associated with the Hudson River and the roughly 38 

waterway crossings in this county.

The rail corridor continues to closely adjoin the Hudson River through the majority of the 29.5 

miles of the rail corridor as it extends through Columbia County, largely remaining within 50 to 

300 feet of the river. There are approximately 22 waterway crossings in this county, including 

several bridges over the inlets of the Hudson River. Approximately 1,244 acres of 100-year 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page G-63

New York State Department of Transportation 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation 

floodplains are located within 300 feet of the rail centerline in this county associated with the 

Hudson River and its numerous tributaries.

The railroad extends 13.4 miles through Rensselaer County, paralleling the Hudson River and 

closely adjoining the river through the southern portion of the county. In the 90/110 Study Area, 

there are roughly 751 acres of 100-year floodplains. In the 125 Study Area, there are 752 acres of 

100-year floodplains. These floodplains are primarily associated with the Hudson River. 

8.2 Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch: 90/110 Study Area

The 322-mile-long Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch for the 90/110 Study Area, with the 

exception of the metropolitan areas within and surrounding the major cities, has a distinctively 

more rural agricultural character than the segment to the south. The Empire Corridor West 

generally follows or parallels several geographic features, including the Mohawk River or New York 

Canal System, and the New York State Thruway. The Niagara Branch turns north at Buffalo on Lake 

Erie, generally paralleling the Lake Erie shoreline and then extending north along the Niagara River. 

The railroad crosses over the Hudson River (MP 143) at the Livingston Avenue Bridge and enters 

Albany County. The railroad extends approximately 11.8 miles across Albany County. The 600-

foot-wide study area in this county contains approximately 90 acres of 100-year floodplains 

associated with the Hudson River and other crossing waterways, including Patroons Creek, 

Rensselaer Lake, and Lisha Kill. The southeastern portion of Albany County is within the Lower 

Hudson River watershed, but just after the railroad crosses Rensselaer Lake (MP 154), there is a 

transition to Mohawk River watershed. 

The entire 14.7 miles of the Empire Corridor that pass through Schenectady County are located 

within the Mohawk River watershed. There are approximately nine waterway crossings in 

Schenectady County, including the Mohawk/Erie Canal that parallels the railroad west of 

Schenectady Station, extending between 75 feet to 1 1⁄4 miles of the railroad. However, digital 

floodplain data was not available to calculate the number of acres of 100-year floodplains within 

300 feet of the rail centerline.

The railroad continues to closely adjoin the north banks of the Mohawk River/Erie Canal through 

the 40.3 miles of the rail corridor as it extends through Montgomery County, largely remaining 

within 50 to 1,000 feet of the river/canal. The entire county remains within the Mohawk River 

watershed, and there are approximately 35 waterway crossings in this county. However, digital 

floodplain data was not available to calculate the number of acres of 100-year floodplains within 

300 feet of the railroad.

The railroad traverses through Herkimer County for approximately 25.3 miles. There are 

approximately 904 acres of 100-year floodplains within 300 feet of the rail centerline. The 

floodplains are associated with the Mohawk River/ Erie Canal, which parallel the railroad 

throughout the county. 

The Empire Corridor extends 28.6 miles through Oneida County, paralleling the Erie Canal through 

the eastern half of the county between Utica on the east and Rome. The eastern half of the county 

remains within the Mohawk River watershed, but west of the Rome Station (MP 261.5) the railroad 

enters the Oswego River/Finger Lakes watershed. There are approximately 780 acres of mapped 

Page G-64 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation Tier 1 Draft EIS

100-year floodplains within the study area. These floodplains are associated with certain 

waterbodies that cross the railroad in Oneida County (11 in total), including the Mohawk River, 

Mud Creek, Stony Creek, and Oneida Creek.

Madison County is entirely within the Oswego River/Finger Lakes watershed, and the railroad 

traverses through approximately 13.8 miles of this county. In the eastern half of the county, the 

railroad generally parallels the Old Erie Canal, with the canal within 100 to 1,000 feet on the north 

side, before it crosses the railroad around MP 272 and heads south, out of the study area. There are 

approximately 226 acres of 100-year floodplains within 300 feet or the rail centerline. These 

floodplains are associated with certain waterbodies that cross the railroad in Madison County (11 

in total), including Old Erie Canal, Cowelson Creek, Canastota Creek, Owlville Creek, and Canseraga 

Creek.

The railroad extends 31.3 miles through Onondaga County, roughly paralleling the New York State 

Thruway and skirting the southeast shores of Onondaga Lake in the city of Syracuse. There are 

approximately 712 acres of 100-year floodplains in the study area associated with certain 

waterway crossings in this county (16 in all). Floodplains adjoin Pools Brook, Lake Brook, 

Limestone Creek, Butternut Creek, Onondaga Lake itself and its tributaries (Ley Creek, Geddes 

Brook, Ninemile Creek), and Old Erie Canal. All waters are within the Oswego River/Finger Lakes 

watershed in this county. 

The Empire Corridor extends 11.5 miles through Cayuga County, roughly paralleling the New York 

State Thruway. There are 316 acres of 100-year floodplains mapped in the study area in this 

county. These floodplains are associated with the five water body crossings: the Seneca River 

(which crosses the railroad at the west end of the county) and its tributaries Putnam Brook, 

Coldspring Brook, Owasco Outlet, and Swamp Brook. 

The railroad extends 37.1 miles through rural Wayne County, paralleling portions of the Erie Canal 

and Route 31. The Erie Canal meanders back and forth along the railroad for much of the county, 

crossing the railroad twice. Most (98%) of the railroad is located with the Oswego River/Finger 

Lakes watershed, and the railroad enters the Lake Ontario Tributaries watershed (MP 357) on the 

western end. There are approximately 18 waterway crossings in this county, including the two Erie 

Canal crossings mentioned above; however, digital floodplain data was not available to calculate the 

number of acres of 100-year floodplains within 300 feet of the railroad.

The railroad extends 30.9 miles through Monroe County, closely paralleling the Erie Canal from 

the county’s eastern border to just west of the town of Fairport (MP 361.5). The canal extends close 

to the study area west of Rochester. The county remains in the Lake Ontario Tributaries watershed 

until just east of Rochester where the railroad enters the Genesee River watershed (MP 370.5), just 

before crossing the Genesee River (MP 371.5). There are approximately 237 acres of 100-year 

floodplains associated with the certain waterway crossings within the study area (19 in all), 

including the Erie Canal and Genesee River.

The railroad traverses approximately 30 miles through Genesee County, and generally follows 

Route 33. The railroad remains in the Genesee River watershed through the eastern portion of the 

county and passes into the Niagara River/Lake Erie watershed just before the town of Batvia (MP 

401). There are 234 acres of 100-year floodplains within the study area associated with certain 

waterway crossing in the county (17 in total), including Black Creek and Tonawanda Creek, and 

Murder Creek.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page G-65

New York State Department of Transportation 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation 

The rail corridor extends 32.7 miles through Erie County. The Niagara River/Lake Erie watershed 

is the only watershed the railroad traverses in this county. There are approximately 15 acres of 

100-year floodplains within the study area associated with waterway crossings in this county, 

including Ellicot Creek, Scajaquada Creek, and Erie Canal.

The railroad extends 14.4 miles through Niagara County, to the north of Erie County. The Niagara 

River/Lake Erie watershed is the only watershed the rail corridor traverses in this county. There 

are approximately 22 acres of 100-year floodplains within the study area associated with waterway 

crossings, including Sawyer Creek, Bergholtz Creek, Cayuga Creek, and Gill Creek.

8.3 Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch: 125 Study Area

The 125 Study Area crosses over the Hudson River (MP QH143.5) and enters Albany County. 

Currently, there is not an existing bridge structure that supports this alignment over the Hudson 

River. The corridor extends approximately 14 miles across Albany County. The 600-foot-wide 

study area in this county contains approximately 43 acres of 100-year floodplains associated with 

the Hudson River and other crossing waterways, including Krum Kill. This portion of Albany 

County is within the Lower Hudson River watershed. 

The corridor extends 17 miles through Schenectady County and remains in the Lower Hudson 

River watershed for approximately 1.5 miles before crossing into the Mohawk River watershed. It 

then passes back into the Lower Hudson River watershed for a majority of the county before 

heading back into the Mohawk River watershed, just before MP QH171. The remainder of the 

county remains in the Mohawk River watershed. There are approximately 18 waterway crossings 

in Schenectady County, including Bonny Brook and numerous small tributaries to Norman’s Kill to 

the south. However, digital floodplain data was not available to calculate the number of acres of 

100-year floodplains within 300 feet of the proposed centerline.

The corridor remains in the Mohawk River watershed throughout the 6.5 miles in Schoharie 

County. Digital floodplain data was not available to calculate the number of acres of 100-year 

floodplains within 300 feet of the proposed centerline; however the corridor would have 

approximately nine waterway crossings, including Schoharie Creek and several crossings of Fly 

Creek. The corridor continues within the Mohawk River watershed through 21.3 miles as it extends 

through Montgomery County. There are approximately 21 waterway crossings in this county, 

including Fly Creek, Flat Creek and Canajoharie Creek. However, digital floodplain data was not 

available to calculate the number of acres of 100-year floodplains within 300 feet of the proposed 

centerline in Montgomery County.

The corridor then traverses through Herkimer County for approximately 25.3 miles. There are 

approximately 45 acres of 100-year floodplains within 300 feet or the rail centerline. The 

floodplains are associated with crossings of Otsquago Creek, Ohisha Creek, Fulmer Creek and 

numerous smaller tributaries. 

The 125 Study Area extends 22 miles through Oneida County, remaining in the Mohawk River 

watershed in the eastern half of the county before entering into the Oswego River/Finger Lakes 

watershed at approximately MP QH243.5. There are approximately 81 acres of mapped 100-year 

floodplains within the study area. These floodplains are associated with certain waterbodies that 

cross the proposed centerline in Oneida County (18 in total), including Palmer Creek, Sauquoit 

Page G-66 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation Tier 1 Draft EIS

Creek, Mud Creek, Sherman Brook, Oriskany Creek and Sconondoa Creek.

Madison County is entirely within the Oswego River/Finger Lakes watershed, and the corridor 

traverses through approximately 14.6 miles of this county. There are approximately 110 acres of 

100-year floodplains within 300 feet or the proposed centerline. These floodplains are associated 

with certain waterbodies that cross the corridor in Madison County (20 in total), including Oneida 

Creek, Cowelson Creek, Dutch Settlement Creek, Canastota Creek, Owlville Creek, Canseraga Creek, 

Old Erie Canal and Chittenango Creek.

The corridor extends 31.6 miles through Onondaga County, roughly paralleling the New York State 

Thruway and skirting the southeast shores of Onondaga Lake in the city of Syracuse. There are 

approximately 547 acres of 100-year floodplains in the study area associated with certain 

waterway crossings in this county (20 in all). Floodplains adjoin Pools Brook, Lake Brook, 

Limestone Creek, Butternut Creek, Onondaga Lake itself and its tributaries (Ley Creek, Geddes 

Brook, Ninemile Creek), Deadman Creek and Old Erie Canal. All waters are within the Oswego 

River/Finger Lakes watershed in this county. 

The 125 Study Area extends 11.1 miles through Cayuga County and remains in the Oswego 

River/Finger Lakes watershed. There are approximately 45 acres of 100-year floodplains mapped 

in the study area in this county. These floodplains are associated with the 15 water body crossings: 

the Seneca River (which crosses the railroad at the east end of the county) and its tributaries, 

Muskrat Creek and Spring Lake Outlet. 

The corridor extends 35.5 miles through rural Wayne County, primarily remaining within the 

Oswego River/Finger Lakes watershed, with a small portion in the eastern portion of the county 

crossing into the Lake Ontario Tributaries watershed before crossing back to Oswego River/Finger 

Lakes watershed. There are approximately 43 waterway crossings in this county; however, digital 

floodplain data was not available to calculate the number of acres of 100-year floodplains within 

300 feet of the proposed centerline.

The corridor extends 29.5 miles through Monroe County. The county remains in the Lake Ontario 

Tributaries watershed until just east of Rochester where the railroad enters the Genesee River 

watershed, just before crossing the Genesee River (MP QH356). There are approximately 296 acres 

of 100-year floodplains associated with the certain waterway crossings within the study area (23 in 

all), including Thomas Creek, Irondequoit Creek, Allen Creek, Erie Canal, Genesee River and Little 

Black Creek.

The 125 Study Area traverses approximately 29.7 miles through Genesee County, and crosses the 

Genesee River watershed, Lake Ontario Tributaries watershed and the Niagara River/Lake Erie 

watershed east to west. There are approximately 247 acres of 100-year floodplains within the 

study area associated with certain waterway crossing in the county (25 in total), including Black 

Creek, Oak Orchard Creek, Whitney Creek, Tonawanda Creek and Murder Creek.

The rail corridor extends 24.3 miles through Erie County. The Niagara River/Lake Erie watershed 

is the only watershed the railroad traverses in this county. There are approximately 20 acres of 

100-year floodplains within the study area associated with waterway crossings in this county, 

including Ransom Creek, Ellicot Creek, Scajaquada Creek, and Erie Canal.

The railroad corridor extends 14.4 miles through Niagara County, to the north of Erie County. The 

Niagara River/Lake Erie watershed is the only watershed the rail corridor traverses in this county. 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page G-67

New York State Department of Transportation 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation 

There are approximately 22 acres of 100-year floodplains within the study area associated with 

waterway crossings, including Sawyer Creek, Bergholtz Creek, Cayuga Creek, and Gill Creek.

9. Wetlands

9.1 Empire Corridor South

Wetlands in the 600-foot-wide study area along Empire Corridor South are primarily associated 

with the Hudson River. The study area includes approximately 106 acres of mapped NWI wetlands 

in New York County (Manhattan) and 133 acres in Bronx County. In both New York and Bronx 

counties, all NWI wetlands are classified as estuarine deepwater. 

In Westchester County, the study area includes a total 770 acres of mapped wetlands within 300 

feet of the railroad centerline. This includes 328 acres mapped of NWI wetlands, 347 acres of NWI 

and NYSDEC tidal wetlands, and 84 acres of NYSDEC tidal wetlands. NWI wetlands include 93

percent of estuarine deepwater and 3 percent of estuarine wetland. NYSDEC tidal wetlands 

include approximately 90 percent open water and 5 percent gramminoid vegetation. In addition, 

there are 1,048 acres of adjacent areas of tidal wetlands mapped. NYSDEC freshwater wetlands 

include approximately 66 percent of Class I wetlands and 34 percent of Class II Wetlands. 

In Putnam County, there are a total of 285 acres of wetlands mapped in the study area. Of the 285 

acres, 197 acres are NWI and NYSDEC tidal wetlands and 46 acres are NYSDEC tidal wetlands. NWI 

wetlands include: 71 percent of estuarine deepwater, 19 percent of estuarine wetland, and 9

percent of palustrine forested/shrub or emergent wetlands. NYSDEC tidal wetlands include 

approximately 70 percent open water and 24 percent gramminoid vegetation wetlands. In 

addition, there are a total of 392 acres of adjacent areas to tidal wetlands mapped. NYSDEC 

freshwater wetlands include approximately 43 percent of Class I wetlands and 57 percent of Class 

II wetlands. 

In Dutchess County, the study area passes through a total of 1,317 acres of mapped wetlands. This 

includes 1,018 acres of NWI and NYSDEC tidal wetlands, 185 acres of NWI and NYSDEC 

tidal/freshwater wetlands, and 108 acres of NYSDEC tidal wetlands. NWI wetlands include: 48

percent riverine, 33 percent estuarine wetlands, 10 percent palustrine emergent wetland or 

forested/shrub wetlands, 4 percent of ponds, and 6 percent of lakes. NYSDEC tidal wetlands 

include approximately 79 percent of open water, 8 percent of broad-leaf vegetation, and 9 percent

of gramminoid vegetation. In addition, there are a total of 1,996 acres of adjacent areas to tidal 

wetlands mapped. NYSDEC freshwater wetlands include approximately 67 percent of Class I 

wetlands and 33 percent of Class II wetlands. 

In Columbia County, the study area includes a total of 966 acres of mapped wetlands. This 

includes 449 acres of NWI and NYSDEC tidal wetlands, 427 acres of NWI and NYSDEC 

tidal/freshwater wetlands, 62 acres of NYSDEC tidal wetlands, and 28 acres of NYSDEC tidal and 

freshwater wetlands. NWI wetlands include: 61 percent riverine, 17 percent palustrine emergent 

wetland, 17 percent palustrine forested/shrub wetlands, and 5 percent pond. NYSDEC tidal 

wetlands include approximately 56 percent of open water, 21 percent of gramminoid vegetation, 

and 12 percent of broad-leaf vegetation. In addition, there are a total of 1,178 acres of adjacent 

areas to tidal wetlands mapped. NYSDEC freshwater wetlands include approximately 90 percent of 

Class I wetlands and 10 percent of Class II wetlands. 

Page G-68 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation Tier 1 Draft EIS

In Rensselaer County, the existing Empire Corridor 90/110 Study Area passes through a total of 

165 acres of mapped wetlands. Of the 165 acres, 66 acres are NWI and NYSDEC tidal wetlands, 76 

acres are NWI and NYSDEC tidal and freshwater wetlands, 13 acres are NYSDEC tidal wetlands, and 

10 acres are NYSDEC tidal and freshwater wetlands. NWI wetlands include: 46 percent of 

palustrine forested/shrub wetlands, 39 percent of riverine, and 14 percent of palustrine emergent 

wetland. NYSDEC tidal wetlands include approximately 53 percent of open water; 24 percent of 

gramminoid vegetation; 7 percent broad-leaf vegetation; 7 percent coastal shoals, bars, and 

mudflats; and 9 percent swamp tree. In addition, there are a total of 806 acres of adjacent areas to 

tidal wetlands mapped. NYSDEC freshwater wetlands include approximately 96 percent of Class I 

wetlands and 4 percent of Class II wetlands. 

In Rensselaer County, the 125 Study Area passes through a total of 162 acres of mapped wetlands. 

Of the 162 acres, 63 acres are NWI and NYSDEC tidal wetlands, 76 acres are NWI and NYSDEC tidal 

and freshwater wetlands, 13 acres are NYSDEC tidal wetlands, and 10 acres are NYSDEC tidal and 

freshwater wetlands. NWI wetlands include: 46 percent of palustrine forested/shrub wetlands, 38

percent of riverine, 14 percent of palustrine emergent wetland, and 2 percent of ponds. NYSDEC 

tidal wetlands include approximately 53 percent of open water; 24 percent of gramminoid 

vegetation; 7 percent broad-leaf vegetation; 7 percent coastal shoals, bars, and mudflats; and 9

percent swamp tree. In addition, there are a total of 806 acres of adjacent areas to tidal wetlands 

mapped. NYSDEC freshwater wetlands include approximately 96 percent of Class I wetlands and 4

percent of Class II wetlands. 

9.2 Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch: 90/110 Study Area

In Albany County, the study area passes through a total of 130 acres of mapped wetlands. The 

mapped wetlands include 70 acres of NWI wetlands, 27 acres of NWI and NYSDEC freshwater 

wetlands, 26 acres of NYSDEC freshwater wetlands, and 6 acres are NWI and NYSDEC tidal 

wetlands. NWI wetlands include: 72 percent of palustrine forested/shrub wetlands, 11 percent of 

palustrine emergent wetland, 10 percent pond, and 5 percent riverine. NYSDEC tidal wetlands 

include approximately 100 percent open water. In addition, there are a total of 165 acres of 

adjacent areas to tidal wetlands mapped. NYSDEC freshwater wetlands include only Class I 

wetlands. 

West of Albany County, there are no NYSDEC tidal wetlands mapped. In Schenectady County, the 

study area includes a total of 103 acres of mapped wetlands. Of the 103 acres, 59 acres are NWI 

wetlands, 25 acres are NYSDEC freshwater wetlands, and 19 acres are NWI and NYSDEC freshwater 

wetlands. NWI wetlands include: 67 percent of palustrine forested/shrub wetlands, 21 percent of 

lakes, 7 percent of palustrine emergent wetland, and 4 percent of ponds. NYSDEC freshwater 

wetlands include approximately 51 percent of Class I wetlands and 49 percent of Class II wetlands. 

In Montgomery County, the study area crosses a total of 340 acres of mapped wetlands in the 

study area. Complete digital data for NWI wetlands was not available for the entire county; 

therefore the wetland totals for this category are likely higher. The study area includes 297 acres of 

NYSDEC freshwater wetlands, 34 acres of NWI wetlands, and 9 acres of NWI and NYSDEC 

freshwater wetlands. The mapped NWI wetlands include: 51 percent of lakes, 34 percent of 

palustrine forested/shrub wetlands, and 15 percent of riverine. NYSDEC freshwater wetlands 

include approximately 25 percent of Class I wetlands, 70 percent of Class II wetlands, and 5 percent

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page G-69

New York State Department of Transportation 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation 

of Class IV wetlands.

In Herkimer County, the study area includes a total of 50 acres of mapped wetlands. Complete 

digital data for NWI wetlands was not available for the entire county; therefore the wetland totals 

for this category are likely higher. The mapped wetlands include 47 acres of NYSDEC freshwater 

wetlands and 3 acres of NWI wetlands. The mapped NWI wetlands include: 65 percent of 

palustrine forested/shrub wetlands, 21 percent of palustrine emergent wetlands, and 14 percent of 

riverine. NYSDEC freshwater wetlands are comprised entirely of Class II wetlands.

The study area crosses a total of 593 acres of mapped NYSDEC freshwater wetlands in Oneida 

County and 88 acres in Madison County. Complete digital data for NWI wetlands was not 

available for the counties; therefore the wetland totals are likely higher. In Oneida County, NYSDEC 

freshwater wetlands include approximately 92 percent of Class II wetlands and 8 percent of Class 

IV wetlands. In Madison County, NYSDEC freshwater wetlands include 23 percent Class I wetlands 

and 77 percent Class II wetlands.

In Onondaga County, the study area crosses a total of 555 acres of mapped wetlands. This 

includes 135 acres of NWI wetlands, 183 acres of NWI and NYSDEC freshwater wetlands, and 237 

acres of NYSDEC freshwater wetlands. NWI wetlands include: 77 percent of palustrine 

forested/shrub wetlands, 15 percent of palustrine emergent wetland, 5 percent of lakes, and 3% of 

pond. NYSDEC freshwater wetlands include approximately 43 percent of Class I wetlands, 49

percent of Class II wetlands, and 8 percent of Class III wetlands.

In Cayuga County, the study area crosses a total of 221 acres of mapped wetlands. Of the 221 

acres, 68 acres are NWI wetlands, 111 acres are NWI and NYSDEC freshwater wetlands, and 42 

acres are NYSDEC freshwater wetlands. NWI wetlands include: 59 percent of palustrine 

forested/shrub wetlands, 35 percent of palustrine emergent wetlands, and 4 percent of riverine. 

NYSDEC freshwater wetlands include approximately 78 percent of Class II wetlands and 22 percent

of Class III wetlands. 

In Wayne County, the study area crosses a total of 901 acres of mapped wetlands. This includes 

287 acres of NWI wetlands, 474 acres of NWI and NYSDEC freshwater wetlands, and 140 acres of 

NYSDEC freshwater wetlands. NWI wetlands include: 62 percent of palustrine forested/shrub 

wetlands, 23 percent of palustrine emergent wetlands, 11 percent of riverine, and 3 percent of 

ponds. NYSDEC freshwater wetlands include approximately 27 percent of Class I wetlands, 70

percent of Class II wetlands, 1 percent of Class III wetlands, and 2 percent of Class IV wetlands.

In Monroe County, the study area crosses a total of 308 acres of mapped wetlands. These include 

134 acres of NWI wetlands, 131 acres of NWI and NYSDEC freshwater wetlands, and 43 acres of 

NYSDEC freshwater wetlands. NWI wetlands include: 76 percent of palustrine forested/shrub 

wetlands, 11 percent of palustrine emergent wetland, 6 percent of ponds, and 6 percent of lakes. 

NYSDEC freshwater wetlands include approximately 33 percent of Class I wetlands and 67 percent

of Class II wetlands.

In Genesee County, the study area crosses a total of 409 acres of mapped wetlands. This includes 

240 acres of NWI wetlands, 117 acres of NWI and NYSDEC freshwater wetlands, and 52 acres of 

NYSDEC freshwater wetlands. NWI wetlands include: 64 percent of palustrine forested/shrub 

wetlands, 21 percent of palustrine emergent wetland, 9 percent of ponds, and 5 percent of lakes. 

NYSDEC freshwater wetlands include approximately 13 percent of Class I wetlands, 72 percent of 

Class II wetlands, and 15 percent of Class III wetlands.

Page G-70 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation Tier 1 Draft EIS

In Erie County, the study area crosses a total of 179 acres of mapped wetlands. This includes 144 

acres of NWI wetlands, 25 acres of NWI and NYSDEC freshwater wetlands, and 10 acres of NYSDEC 

freshwater wetlands. NWI wetlands include: 90 percent of palustrine forested/shrub wetlands, 5

percent of ponds, and 4 percent of riverine. NYSDEC freshwater wetlands include only Class II 

wetlands. 

In Niagara County, the study area crosses a total of 64 acres of mapped NWI wetlands. NWI 

wetlands include: 71 percent of palustrine forested/shrub wetlands, 19 percent of palustrine 

emergent wetland, 5 percent of ponds, and 5 percent of riverine. 

9.3 Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch: 125 Study Area

In Albany County, the study area passes through a total of nine acres of mapped wetlands. The 

mapped wetlands include three acres of NWI wetlands and six acres of NWI and NYSDEC tidal 

wetlands. There are no NWI and NYSDEC freshwater wetlands or NYSDEC freshwater wetlands 

mapped in the study area in Albany County. NWI wetlands include: 61 percent riverine, 16 percent

of palustrine forested/shrub wetlands, 13 percent lake, and 10 percent of palustrine emergent 

wetland. NYSDEC tidal wetlands include 100 percent open water. In addition, there are a total of 

75 acres of adjacent areas to tidal wetlands mapped.

West of Albany County, there are no NYSDEC tidal wetlands mapped. In Schenectady County, the 

study area includes a total of 44 acres of mapped wetlands. All of the 44 acres are NWI wetlands. 

NWI wetlands include: 95 percent of palustrine forested/shrub wetlands, and 4 percent of 

palustrine emergent wetland. 

There are no NYSDEC wetlands mapped in the study area in Schoharie County, and NWI digital 

data was not available.

In Montgomery County, the study area crosses a total of 144 acres of mapped wetlands. Complete 

digital data for NWI wetlands was not available for the entire county; therefore the wetland totals 

for this category are likely higher. The study area includes 36 acres of NWI wetlands and 108 acres 

of NYSDEC freshwater wetlands. The mapped NWI wetlands include: 65 percent of palustrine 

emergent wetland, 31 percent of palustrine forested/shrub wetlands, and 4 percent of lakes. 

NYSDEC freshwater wetlands include approximately 98 percent of Class I wetlands and 2 percent of 

Class II wetlands.

In Herkimer County, the study area includes a total of 29 acres of mapped wetlands. Complete 

digital data for NWI wetlands was not available for the entire county; therefore the wetland totals 

for this category are likely higher. The mapped wetlands include nine acres of NYSDEC freshwater 

wetlands and 20 acres of NWI wetlands. The mapped NWI wetlands include: 79 percent of 

palustrine forested/shrub wetlands, 15 percent of palustrine emergent wetlands, and 6 percent of 

lakes. NYSDEC freshwater wetlands are comprised entirely of Class II wetlands.

The study area crosses a total of 190 acres of mapped NYSDEC freshwater wetlands in Oneida 

County and 11 acres in Madison County. Complete digital data for NWI wetlands was not available 

for the counties; therefore the wetland totals are likely higher. In Oneida County, NYSDEC 

freshwater wetlands include approximately 79 percent of Class II wetlands, 17 percent of Class III 

wetlands, and 4 percent of Class IV wetlands. In Madison County, NYSDEC freshwater wetlands 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page G-71

New York State Department of Transportation 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation 

include 99 percent Class II wetlands and 1 percent Class III wetlands.

In Onondaga County, the study area crosses a total of 461 acres of mapped wetlands. This 

includes 80 acres of NWI wetlands, 98 acres of NWI and NYSDEC freshwater wetlands, and 283 

acres of NYSDEC freshwater wetlands. NWI wetlands include: 81 percent of palustrine 

forested/shrub wetlands, 9 percent of ponds, 7 percent of palustrine emergent wetland, and 3

percent of lakes/riverine. NYSDEC freshwater wetlands include approximately 47 percent of Class I 

wetlands, 42 percent of Class II wetlands, and 11 percent of Class III wetlands.

In Cayuga County, the study area crosses a total of 157 acres of mapped wetlands. Of the 157 

acres, 45 acres are NWI wetlands, 85 acres are NWI and NYSDEC freshwater wetlands, and 27 acres 

are NYSDEC freshwater wetlands. NWI wetlands include: 91 percent of palustrine forested/shrub 

wetlands, 5 percent of palustrine emergent wetlands, and 4 percent of riverine. NYSDEC 

freshwater wetlands include approximately 87 percent of Class II wetlands and 13 percent of Class 

III wetlands. 

In Wayne County, the study area crosses a total of 335 acres of mapped wetlands. This includes 

107 acres of NWI wetlands, 190 acres of NWI and NYSDEC freshwater wetlands, and 38 acres of 

NYSDEC freshwater wetlands. NWI wetlands include: 89 percent of palustrine forested/shrub 

wetlands, 7 percent of palustrine emergent wetlands, and 4 percent of lakes/ponds. NYSDEC 

freshwater wetlands include approximately 30 percent of Class II wetlands and 70 percent of Class 

III wetlands.

In Monroe County, the study area crosses a total of 253 acres of mapped wetlands. These include 

126 acres of NWI wetlands, 106 acres of NWI and NYSDEC freshwater wetlands, and 21 acres of 

NYSDEC freshwater wetlands. NWI wetlands include: 89 percent of palustrine forested/shrub 

wetlands, 5 percent of palustrine emergent wetland, and 6 percent of ponds, riverine, and lakes. 

NYSDEC freshwater wetlands include approximately 10 percent of Class I wetlands, 72 percent of 

Class II wetlands, and 18 percent of Class III wetlands.

In Genesee County, the study area crosses a total of 420 acres of mapped wetlands. This includes 

226 acres of NWI wetlands, 182 acres of NWI and NYSDEC freshwater wetlands, and 12 acres of 

NYSDEC freshwater wetlands. NWI wetlands include: 89 percent of palustrine forested/shrub 

wetlands, 7 percent of palustrine emergent wetland, and 4 percent riverine/lakes. NYSDEC 

freshwater wetlands include approximately 50 percent of Class I wetlands, 18 percent of Class II 

wetlands, and 32 percent of Class III wetlands.

In Erie County, the study area crosses a total of 247 acres of mapped wetlands. This includes 151 

acres of NWI wetlands, 83 acres of NWI and NYSDEC freshwater wetlands, and 13 acres of NYSDEC 

freshwater wetlands. NWI wetlands include: 81 percent of palustrine forested/shrub wetlands, 8

percent of palustrine emergent wetland, and 11 percent of ponds/riverine/lakes. NYSDEC 

freshwater wetlands include approximately 65 percent of Class I wetlands and 35 percent of Class 

II wetlands.

In Niagara County, the study area crosses a total of 64 acres of mapped NWI wetlands. NWI 

wetlands include: 71 percent of palustrine forested/shrub wetlands, 19 percent of palustrine 

emergent wetland, 5 percent of ponds, and 5 percent of riverine. 

Page G-72 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
New York

New York

New Jersey

Hudson River

Harlem River

Yonkers

Poughkeepsie

New York Penn Station

§ ̈¦87 § ̈¦84

§ ̈¦287

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦280

§ ̈¦78

§ ̈¦95

§ ̈¦495

B e r g e n B e r g e n

E s s e x E s s e x

U n i o n U n i o n

P a s s a i c P a s s a i c

H u d s o n H u d s o n

M o r r i s M o r r i s

O r a n g e O r a n g e

U l s t e r U l s t e r

R o c k l a n d R o c k l a n d

D u t c h e s s D u t c h e s s

W e s t c h e s t e r W e s t c h e s t e r

P u t n a m P u t n a m

K i n g s K i n g s

Q u e e n s Q u e e n s

B r o n x B r o n x

N e w Y o r k N e w Y o r k

R i c h m o n d R i c h m o n d

New York

Ramapo

Tuxedo

Cortlandt

Fishkill

Newburgh

Gardiner

Philipstown

Yorktown

Clarkstown

Plattekill

Montgomery

La Grange

East Fishkill

Woodbury

Lloyd

Highlands

Kent

Cornwall

Greenburgh

New Windsor

Monroe

Stony Point

Wappinger

Haverstraw

Shawangunk

Mount Pleasant

Putnam Valley

Orangetown

Yonkers

Blooming Grove

Chester

Poughkeepsie

Marlborough

Ossining

Hamptonburgh

New Castle

Somers

Crawford

New Rochelle

New Paltz

Beacon

Peekskill

Scarsdale

Rochester

Eastchester

Mount Vernon

Pelham

Beekman

North Hempstead

Wallkill

Copyright:© 2009 ESRI

Hudson River

Hudson River

New York

Connecticut

Putnam

Acres

Hudson

Rhinecliff

Poughkeepsie

Albany-Rensselaer

§ ̈¦87

§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦787

§ ̈¦890

A l b a n y A l b a n y

D u t c h e s s D u t c h e s s

C o l u m b i a C o l u m b i a

U l s t e r U l s t e r

G r e e n e G r e e n e

R e n s s e l a e r R e n s s e l a e r

Cairo

Catskill

Ghent

Milan

Schodack

Saugerties

Colonie

Westerlo

Stanford

Lloyd

Esopus

Clinton

Gallatin

Guilderland

Coeymans

Washington

Ulster

Claverack

Bethlehem

Chatham

New Scotland

Red Hook

Athens

Berne

Taghkanic

Hyde Park

Greenville

Rhinebeck

Ancram

Coxsackie

Livingston

Nassau

New Baltimore

Hunter

Pine Plains

Dover

Brunswick

Knox

Union Vale La Grange

Albany

Kinderhook

Copake

Stuyvesant

Amenia

Pleasant Valley

New Paltz

Clermont

Greenport

Troy

East Greenbush

Stockport

Northeast

North GreenbushPoestenkill

Germantown

Woodstock

Kingston

Poughkeepsie

Durham

Princetown

Plattekill

Jewett

Rensselaer

Hudson

Cohoes

Watervliet

Marbletown

Copyright:© 2009 ESRI

PENNSYLVANIA

ONTARIO

(CANADA)

NEW YORK

6 5 4 3

1

2

KEY MAP

0 2.5 5 10

Miles

MAP 1 MAP 2

I Tier 1 EIS

High Speed Rail

Empire Corridor Program

Wetlands

Source: NWI, 2011 and NYSDEC, 2011

Amtrak Station

NWI Wetlands

NYSDEC Tidal Wetlands

NYSDEC Freshwater Wetlands

Existing Empire Corridor

Alternative 125 Corridor

Alt. 125 as shown is a potential corridor used to analyze the potential operating characteristics, environmental impacts and cost for this speed (125 mph) threshold. *

*

Exhibit G-8
Hudson River

Mohawk River/Erie Canal

West Canada Creek

East Canada Creek

Schoharie Creek

Amsterdam

Schenectady

Albany-Rensselaer

§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦88

§ ̈¦87

§ ̈¦787

§ ̈¦890

F u l t o n F u l t o n

O t s e g o O t s e g o

S a r a t o g a S a r a t o g a H e r k i m e r H e r k i m e r

A l b a n y A l b a n y

M o n t g o m e r y M o n t g o m e r y

S c h o h a r i e S c h o h a r i e

S c h e n e c t a d y S c h e n e c t a d y

R e n s s e l a e r R e n s s e l a e r

Root

Glen

Otsego

Knox

Colonie

Florida

Minden

Johnstown

Mayfield

Galway

Stark

Duanesburg

Greenfield

Glenville

Malta

Milton

Berne

Sharon

Warren

Palatine

Guilderland

Caroga

Fairfield

Oppenheim

Seward

Perth

Hartwick

Carlisle

Ephratah

Wright

Mohawk

Wilton

Springfield

Stratford

Providence

Bleecker

Danube

Westford

Ballston

Salisbury

Canajoharie

Columbia

Exeter

Richfield

Roseboom

Decatur

Fulton Bethlehem

Newport

Middlefield

Clifton Park

Charleston

Charlton

Broadalbin

Herkimer

Rotterdam

Manheim

Stillwater

Albany

Cobleskill

Cherry Valley

Schuyler

Schoharie

Middleburgh

New Scotland

Amsterdam

German Flatts

Little Falls

Princetown

Richmondville

Worcester

Esperance

Saratoga Springs

Niskayuna

St Johnsville

Summit

Edinburg

Northampton

Schenectady

Waterford

Cohoes

Gloversville

Milford Maryland

Winfield

Copyright:© 2009 ESRI

Oneida

Lake

Erie Canal

Erie Canal

Mohawk River

Chittenango Creek

Onondaga

Lake

Rome

Syracuse § ̈¦90

§ ̈¦81

§ ̈¦690

§ ̈¦481

§ ̈¦790

O n e i d a O n e i d a

O n o n d a g a O n o n d a g a

M a d i s o n M a d i s o n

O s w e g o O s w e g o

C a y u g a C a y u g a O t s e g o O t s e g o

C o r t l a n d C o r t l a n d

H e r k i m e r H e r k i m e r

Vienna

Rome

Clay

Verona

Sullivan

Constantia

Niles

Pompey

Lee

Eaton

Cicero

Brookfield

Lysander

Fabius

Manlius

Nelson

Floyd

Onondaga Paris

Lenox

Trenton

Marcy

Tully

Vernon

Madison

Granby

Otisco

Elbridge

Fenner

La Fayette

Lebanon Hamilton

Kirkland

Camillus

Frankfort

Marshall

Schroeppel

Van Buren

Western

Russia

Lincoln

Litchfield

Plainfield

Hastings

Ira

Annsville

Camden

Sangerfield

Steuben

Moravia Scott Preble

Cazenovia

De Witt

Spafford

Skaneateles

Deerfield

Marcellus

Augusta

Exeter

Schuyler

Utica Oneida

Westmoreland

Winfield

Syracuse

Georgetown

Stockbridge

DeRuyter

Salina

Smithfield

West Monroe

Whitestown

Cuyler

Bridgewater

Volney

New Hartford

Cato

Owasco

Sennett

Geddes

Richfield

Truxton Sempronius

Remsen

Columbia

Palermo

Edmeston

Fulton

Sherrill

Amboy

Copyright:© 2009 ESRI

PENNSYLVANIA

ONTARIO

(CANADA)

NEW YORK

6 5 4 3

1

2

KEY MAP

MAP 4

MAP 3

I 0 5 10 2.5

Miles

Tier 1 EIS

High Speed Rail

Empire Corridor Program

Wetlands

Source: NWI, 2011 and NYSDEC, 2011

NWI Wetlands

NYSDEC Tidal Wetlands

NYSDEC Freshwater Wetlands

Existing Empire Corridor

Amtrak Station

Erie Canal

Erie Canal

Mohawk River

Chittenango Creek

Onondaga

Lake

Old Erie Canal

Alternative 125 Corridor

Alt. 125 as shown is a potential corridor used to analyze the potential operating characteristics, environmental impacts and cost for this speed (125 mph) threshold.

*

*

Exhibit G-8
Lake

Ontario

Erie Canal

Seneca River

Genesee River

Erie Canal

Old Erie Canal

Rochester

§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦390

§ ̈¦490 § ̈¦590

W a y n e W a y n e

M o n r o e M o n r o e

O n t a r i o O n t a r i o

C a y u g a C a y u g a

S e n e c a S e n e c a

L i v i n g s t o n L i v i n g s t o n

O s w e g o O s w e g o

Ira

Sodus

Galen

Phelps

Chili

Fayette

Cato

Tyre

Greece

Huron

Arcadia

Parma

Rose

Lima

Lyons

Butler

Victor

Sterling

Rush

Ogden

Wolcott

Hannibal

Riga

Mendon

Victory

York

Penfield

Seneca

Ontario

Macedon

Marion

Webster

Perinton Palmyra

Junius

Henrietta

Hopewell

Aurelius

Conquest

Sennett

Walworth

Caledonia

Livonia

Brutus

Gorham

Fleming

Geneseo Bristol

Mentz

Hamlin

Wheatland

Throop

Oswego

Niles

Avon

Canandaigua

Savannah

Rochester

Farmington Manchester

Williamson

Owasco

Pittsford

Gates

Waterloo

Springport

Seneca Falls

East Bloomfield

Richmond

Brighton

Montezuma

West Bloomfield

Geneva

Scipio

Auburn

Lysander

Irondequoit

East Rochester

Copyright:© 2009 ESRI

Ontario

(Canada)

New York

(United States)

Lake

Erie

Lake

Ontario

Lake

Ontario

Erie Canal/Tonawanda Creek

Niagara River

Buffalo-Depew

Niagara Falls

Buffalo-Exchange Street

§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦490

§ ̈¦290

E r i e E r i e

N i a g a r a N i a g a r a

G e n e s e e G e n e s e e

O r l e a n s O r l e a n s

M o n r o e M o n r o e

W y o m i n g W y o m i n g

L i v i n g s t o n L i v i n g s t o n

E r i e E r i e

York

Barre Royalton

Elba

Riga

Darien

Batavia

Wilson

Buffalo

Elma

Shelby

Amherst

Hartland

Attica

Clarence

Le Roy

Alabama

Alden

Hamlin

Newstead

Porter Newfane

Byron

Ridgeway

Gaines

Bennington

Cambria

Pavilion

Murray

Bethany

Sweden

Pembroke

Marilla

Stafford

Lancaster

Bergen

Clarkson

Alexander

Clarendon

Carlton

Perry

Yates Kendall

Ogden

Caledonia

Covington

Aurora Wales Sheldon Leicester

Somerset

Warsaw

Lockport Lewiston

Albion

Middlebury

Oakfield

Wheatfield

Pendleton

Grand Island

Hamburg

Cheektowaga

Orchard Park

Tonawanda

West Seneca

Wheatland

Niagara Falls

Niagara

Orangeville

North Tonawanda

Lackawanna

Copyright:© 2009 ESRI

PENNSYLVANIA

ONTARIO

(CANADA)

NEW YORK

6 5 4 3

1

2

KEY MAP

I 0 5 10 2.5

Miles

Tier 1 EIS

High Speed Rail

Empire Corridor Program

MAP 6

MAP 5

Wetlands

Source: NWI, 2011 and NYSDEC, 2011

Amtrak Station

NWI Wetlands

NYSDEC Freshwater Wetlands

Existing Empire Corridor

Alternative 125 Corridor

Alt. 125 as shown is a potential corridor used to analyze the potential operating characteristics, environmental impacts and cost for this speed (125 mph) threshold.

*

*

Exhibit G-8
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation 

10. Aquifers

10.1 Empire Corridor South

All of the Build alternatives follow the existing Empire Corridor South for the majority of its length, 

deviating only in Rensselaer County, where Alternative 125 splits off 1.6 miles south of where the 

existing Empire Corridor turns to the west. In New York and Bronx Counties, the rail alignment 

study area does not pass over any U.S. EPA regulated SSAs or any primary or principal aquifers of 

New York State. 

In Westchester County, the rail alignment study area crosses over both primary and principal 

aquifers of New York State. The corridor passes over approximately 0.26 square mile of the CrotonOssining Primary Aquifer north and south of the Croton-Harmon Station and approximately 0.03 

square mile of principal aquifers just north of Peekskill.

In the remaining counties (Putnam, Dutchess, Columbia and Rensselaer counties), the Empire 

Corridor does not pass over any U.S. EPA regulated SSAs or New York State primary aquifers. 

However, the corridor does pass over small segments of New York State principal aquifers in all 

four counties. In Putnam County, the rail corridor crosses over 0.09 square feet of principal 

aquifers just south of Cold Spring. In Dutchess County, the rail corridor passes over approximately 

0.03 square mile of principal aquifers south of New Hamburg. 

There is approximately 0.41 square mile of principal aquifers underlying the rail corridor in 

Columbia County, mainly between Hudson and the northern county line. In Rensselaer County, 

the majority of the 90/110 Study Area passes over 0.80 square mile of principal aquifers and the 

125 Study Area passes over 0.83 square mile of principal aquifers.

10.2 Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch: 90/110 Study Area

There are two aquifer types that underlie the study area in Albany County: the SchenectadyNiskayuna SSA (0.43 square mile) and a New York State principal aquifer (0.93 square mile). 

The study area passes over the same two aquifer types in Schenectady County: the SchenectadyNiskayuna SSA (1.60 square miles) and New York State principal aquifers (0.30 square mile). In 

addition to these two aquifer types, the study area also crosses over approximately 1.29 square 

miles of the Schenectady Primary Aquifer. The study area is completely underlain with one or more 

of the above-mentioned aquifer types in this county. 

The study area in Montgomery County is completely underlain with approximately 4.47 square 

miles of New York State principal aquifers. There are no Sole-Source Aquifers or primary aquifers 

in the study area in this county, or in Herkimer or Oneida counties.

The study area in Herkimer and Oneida Counties is underlain with New York State principal 

aquifers (2.70 square miles in Herkimer and 1.83 square miles in Oneida). In Herkimer County, 

the majority of the study area is underlain with principal aquifers with the exception of a small area 

near Little Falls. In Oneida County, principal aquifers underlie the study area for the majority of 

the eastern portion of the county, until just west of Rome, where no aquifer types are found under 

the study area. In Madison County, there are no aquifers located beneath the study area.

Page G-76 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation Tier 1 Draft EIS

In Onondaga County, the study area overlies approximately 1.95 square miles of Baldwinsville 

Primary Aquifer. Where the railroad enters Syracuse, it passes over this primary aquifer, which 

extends to just east of the county line at which point it transitions to a New York State principal 

aquifer (0.20 square mile).

The study area also passes over only New York State principal aquifers in portions of Cayuga and 

Wayne counties. In Cayuga County, there is approximately 0.71 square mile of principal aquifers 

beneath the study area, mainly in the eastern half of the county. In Wayne County, the study area 

passes over approximately 2.41 square miles of principal aquifers, mainly in the western half of the 

county.

Monroe and Genesee counties are both underlain with portions of New York State primary aquifers. 

In Monroe County, the study area passes over approximately 0.88 square mile of the 

Irondongenessee Primary Aquifer, primarily between the eastern county boundary and Rochester. 

In Genesee County, the study area passes over approximately 0.37 square mile of the Batvia 

Primary Aquifer near the town of Batvia. There is also 0.37 square mile of New York State principal 

aquifers under the study area in Monroe County. 

In Erie County, the study area passes over only one aquifer type. There is approximately 0.04 

square mile of New York State principal aquifers scattered throughout the county. There are no 

aquifers beneath the study area in Niagara County. 

10.3 Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch: 125 Study Area

There are two aquifer types that underlie the study area in Albany County: the SchenectadyNiskayuna SSA (0.06 square mile) and a New York State principal aquifer (1.23 square miles). 

The study area passes over only New York State principal aquifers in Schenectady, Schoharie, 

Montgomery, Herkimer, Oneida and Madison counties. In Schenectady County, only the eastern 

portion of the study area passes over 0.59 square mile of principal aquifers. The study area in 

eastern Schoharie County and a small area near the Montgomery County border are underlain 

with principal aquifers. In total, the study area passes over 0.33 square mile of principal aquifers in 

Schoharie County.

The study area in Montgomery County is underlain with approximately 0.41 square mile of New 

York State principal aquifers, primarily in the eastern part of the county. Principal aquifers occur 

sporadically in Herkimer, Oneida, and Madison counties and underlay 0.73 square mile in 

Herkimer County, 0.47 square mile in Oneida County, and 0.10 square mile in Madison County. 

In Onondaga County, the study area overlies approximately 1.52 square miles of Baldwinsville 

Primary Aquifer. Where the railroad enters Syracuse, it passes over this primary aquifer, which 

continues along the study area to just east of the county line at which point it transitions to a New 

York State principal aquifer (0.20 square mile).

In Cayuga County, there is approximately 0.23 square mile of principal aquifers beneath the study 

area, mainly in the eastern half of the county. In Wayne County, the study area passes over 

approximately 0.84 square mile of principal aquifers, sporadically throughout the county. As the 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page G-77

New York State Department of Transportation 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation 

corridor approaches the western border of Wayne County, it passes over 0.02 square mile of the 

Irondongenessee Primary Aquifer. The study area continues over approximately 0.87 square mile 

of the Irondongenessee Primary Aquifer in Monroe County, primarily between the eastern county 

boundary and Rochester. In addition, there is 0.29 square mile of New York State principal aquifers 

underneath the corridor in eastern Monroe County.

In Genesee and Erie counties, the study area passes over only one aquifer type: New York State 

principal aquifers. There is 0.12 square mile of principal aquifers under the study area in Genesee 

County and 0.28 square mile in Erie County. There are no aquifers beneath the study area in 

Niagara County. 

Page G-78 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
New York

New York

New Jersey

Hudson River

Harlem River

Yonkers

Poughkeepsie

New York Penn Station

§ ̈¦87 § ̈¦84

§ ̈¦287

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦280

§ ̈¦78

§ ̈¦95

§ ̈¦495

B e r g e n B e r g e n

E s s e x E s s e x

U n i o n U n i o n

P a s s a i c P a s s a i c

H u d s o n H u d s o n

M o r r i s M o r r i s

O r a n g e O r a n g e

U l s t e r U l s t e r

R o c k l a n d R o c k l a n d

D u t c h e s s D u t c h e s s

W e s t c h e s t e r W e s t c h e s t e r

P u t n a m P u t n a m

K i n g s K i n g s

Q u e e n s Q u e e n s

B r o n x B r o n x

N e w Y o r k N e w Y o r k

R i c h m o n d R i c h m o n d

New York

Ramapo

Tuxedo

Cortlandt

Fishkill

Newburgh

Gardiner

Philipstown

Yorktown

Clarkstown

Plattekill

Montgomery

La Grange

East Fishkill

Woodbury

Lloyd

Highlands

Kent

Cornwall

Greenburgh

New Windsor

Monroe

Stony Point

Wappinger

Haverstraw

Shawangunk

Mount Pleasant

Putnam Valley

Orangetown

Yonkers

Blooming Grove

Chester

Poughkeepsie

Marlborough

Ossining

Hamptonburgh

New Castle

Somers

Crawford

New Rochelle

New Paltz

Beacon

Peekskill

Scarsdale

Rochester

Eastchester

Mount Vernon

Pelham

Beekman

North Hempstead

Wallkill

Copyright:© 2009 ESRI

Hudson River

Hudson River

New York

Connecticut

Putnam

Acres

Hudson

Rhinecliff

Poughkeepsie

Albany-Rensselaer

§ ̈¦87

§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦787

§ ̈¦890

A l b a n y A l b a n y

D u t c h e s s D u t c h e s s

C o l u m b i a C o l u m b i a

U l s t e r U l s t e r

G r e e n e G r e e n e

R e n s s e l a e r R e n s s e l a e r

Cairo

Catskill

Ghent

Milan

Schodack

Saugerties

Colonie

Westerlo

Stanford

Lloyd

Esopus

Clinton

Gallatin

Guilderland

Coeymans

Washington

Ulster

Claverack

Bethlehem

Chatham

New Scotland

Red Hook

Athens

Berne

Taghkanic

Hyde Park

Greenville

Rhinebeck

Ancram

Coxsackie

Livingston

Nassau

New Baltimore

Hunter

Pine Plains

Dover

Brunswick

Knox

Union Vale La Grange

Albany

Kinderhook

Copake

Stuyvesant

Amenia

Pleasant Valley

New Paltz

Clermont

Greenport

Troy

East Greenbush

Stockport

Northeast

North GreenbushPoestenkill

Germantown

Woodstock

Kingston

Poughkeepsie

Durham

Princetown

Plattekill

Jewett

Rensselaer

Hudson

Cohoes

Watervliet

Marbletown

Copyright:© 2009 ESRI

PENNSYLVANIA

ONTARIO

(CANADA)

NEW YORK

6 5 4 3

1

2

KEY MAP

0 2.5 5 10

Miles

MAP 1 MAP 2

I Tier 1 EIS

High Speed Rail

Empire Corridor Program

Aquifers

Source: USGS, 2011, NYSDEC, 2011.

Amtrak Station

EPA Sole-Source Aquifer

NYSDEC Primary Aquifer

NYSDEC Principal Aquifer

Existing Empire Corridor

Alternative 125 Corridor

Alt. 125 as shown is a potential corridor used to analyze the potential operating characteristics, environmental impacts and cost for this speed (125 mph) threshold. *

*

Exhibit G-9
Hudson River

Mohawk River/Erie Canal

West Canada Creek

East Canada Creek

Schoharie Creek

Amsterdam

Schenectady

Albany-Rensselaer

§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦88

§ ̈¦87

§ ̈¦787

§ ̈¦890

F u l t o n F u l t o n

O t s e g o O t s e g o

S a r a t o g a S a r a t o g a H e r k i m e r H e r k i m e r

A l b a n y A l b a n y

M o n t g o m e r y M o n t g o m e r y

S c h o h a r i e S c h o h a r i e

S c h e n e c t a d y S c h e n e c t a d y

R e n s s e l a e r R e n s s e l a e r

Root

Glen

Otsego

Knox

Colonie

Florida

Minden

Johnstown

Mayfield

Galway

Stark

Duanesburg

Greenfield

Glenville

Malta

Milton

Berne

Sharon

Warren

Palatine

Guilderland

Caroga

Fairfield

Oppenheim

Seward

Perth

Hartwick

Carlisle

Ephratah

Wright

Mohawk

Wilton

Springfield

Stratford

Providence

Bleecker

Danube

Westford

Ballston

Salisbury

Canajoharie

Columbia

Exeter

Richfield

Roseboom

Decatur

Fulton Bethlehem

Middlefield

Clifton Park

Charleston

Charlton

Broadalbin

Herkimer

Rotterdam

Manheim

Stillwater

Albany

Cobleskill

Cherry Valley

Schuyler

Schoharie

Middleburgh

New Scotland

Amsterdam

German Flatts

Newport

Little Falls

Princetown

Richmondville

Worcester

Esperance

Saratoga Springs

Niskayuna

St Johnsville

Summit

Edinburg

Northampton

Schenectady

Waterford

Cohoes

Gloversville

Milford Maryland

Winfield

Copyright:© 2009 ESRI

Oneida

Lake Erie Canal

Erie Canal

Mohawk River

Chittenango Creek

Onondaga

Lake

Rome

Syracuse § ̈¦90

§ ̈¦81

§ ̈¦690

§ ̈¦481

§ ̈¦790

O n e i d a O n e i d a

O n o n d a g a O n o n d a g a

M a d i s o n M a d i s o n

O s w e g o O s w e g o

C a y u g a C a y u g a O t s e g o O t s e g o

C o r t l a n d C o r t l a n d

H e r k i m e r H e r k i m e r

Vienna

Rome

Clay

Verona

Sullivan

Constantia

Niles

Pompey

Lee

Eaton

Cicero

Brookfield

Lysander

Fabius

Manlius

Nelson

Floyd

Onondaga Paris

Lenox

Trenton

Marcy

Tully

Vernon

Madison

Granby

Otisco

Elbridge

Fenner

La Fayette

Lebanon Hamilton

Kirkland

Camillus

Frankfort

Marshall

Schroeppel

Van Buren

Western

Russia

Lincoln

Litchfield

Plainfield

Hastings

Ira

Annsville

Camden

Sangerfield

Steuben

Moravia Scott Preble

Cazenovia

De Witt

Spafford

Skaneateles

Deerfield

Marcellus

Augusta

Exeter

Schuyler

Utica Oneida

Westmoreland

Winfield

Syracuse

Georgetown

Stockbridge

DeRuyter

Salina

Smithfield

West Monroe

Whitestown

Cuyler

Bridgewater

Volney

New Hartford

Cato

Owasco

Sennett

Geddes

Richfield

Truxton Sempronius

Remsen

Columbia

Palermo

Edmeston

Fulton

Sherrill

Amboy

Copyright:© 2009 ESRI

PENNSYLVANIA

ONTARIO

(CANADA)

NEW YORK

6 5 4 3

1

2

KEY MAP

MAP 4

MAP 3

I 0 5 10 2.5

Miles

Tier 1 EIS

High Speed Rail

Empire Corridor Program

Aquifers

Source: USGS, 2011, NYSDEC, 2011.

Amtrak Station

NYSDEC Principal Aquifer

NYSDEC Primary Aquifer

EPA Sole-Source Aquifer

Existing Empire Corridor

Old Erie Canal

Alternative 125 Corridor

Alt. 125 as shown is a potential corridor used to analyze the potential operating characteristics, environmental impacts and cost for this speed (125 mph) threshold. *

*

Exhibit G-9
Lake

Ontario

Erie Canal

Seneca River

Genesee River

Erie Canal

Old Erie Canal

Rochester

§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦390

§ ̈¦490 § ̈¦590

W a y n e W a y n e

M o n r o e M o n r o e

O n t a r i o O n t a r i o

C a y u g a C a y u g a

S e n e c a S e n e c a

L i v i n g s t o n L i v i n g s t o n

O s w e g o O s w e g o

O n o n d a g a O n o n d a g a

Ira

Sodus

Galen

Phelps

Chili

Fayette

Cato

Tyre

Greece

Huron

Arcadia

Parma

Rose

Lima

Lyons

Butler

Victor

Sterling

Rush

Ogden

Wolcott

Hannibal

Riga

Mendon

Victory

York

Penfield

Seneca

Ontario

Macedon

Marion

Webster

Perinton Palmyra

Junius

Henrietta

Hopewell

Aurelius

Conquest

Sennett

Walworth

Caledonia

Rochester

Livonia Gorham

Fleming

Geneseo Bristol

Hamlin

Wheatland

Gates

Throop

Oswego

Niles

Avon

Canandaigua

Savannah

Farmington Brutus Manchester

Williamson

Owasco

Mentz

Pittsford

Waterloo

Springport

Seneca Falls

East Bloomfield

Richmond

Brighton

Montezuma

West Bloomfield

Geneva

Scipio

Auburn

Lysander

Irondequoit

East Rochester

Copyright:© 2009 ESRI

Ontario

(Canada)

New York

(United States)

Lake

Erie

Lake

Ontario

Lake

Ontario

Erie Canal/Tonawanda Creek

Niagara River

Buffalo-Depew

Niagara Falls

Buffalo-Exchange Street

§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦490

§ ̈¦290

E r i e E r i e

N i a g a r a N i a g a r a

G e n e s e e G e n e s e e

O r l e a n s O r l e a n s

M o n r o e M o n r o e

W y o m i n g W y o m i n g

L i v i n g s t o n L i v i n g s t o n

E r i e E r i e

York

Barre Royalton

Elba

Riga

Darien

Batavia

Wilson

Buffalo

Elma

Shelby

Amherst

Hartland

Attica

Clarence

Le Roy

Alabama

Alden

Hamlin

Newstead

Porter Newfane

Byron

Ridgeway

Gaines

Bennington

Cambria

Pavilion

Murray

Bethany

Sweden

Pembroke

Marilla

Stafford

Lancaster

Bergen

Clarkson

Alexander

Clarendon

Carlton

Perry

Yates Kendall

Ogden

Caledonia

Covington

Aurora Wales Sheldon Leicester

Somerset

Warsaw

Lockport Lewiston

Albion

Middlebury

Oakfield

Wheatfield

Pendleton

Grand Island

Hamburg

Cheektowaga

Orchard Park

Tonawanda

West Seneca

Wheatland

Niagara Falls

Niagara

Orangeville

North Tonawanda

Lackawanna

Copyright:© 2009 ESRI

PENNSYLVANIA

ONTARIO

(CANADA)

NEW YORK

6 5 4 3

1

2

KEY MAP

I 0 5 10 2.5

Miles

Tier 1 EIS

High Speed Rail

Empire Corridor Program

MAP 6

MAP 5

Aquifers

Source: USGS, 2011, NYSDEC, 2011.

Amtrak Station

NYSDEC Principal Aquifer

NYSDEC Primary Aquifer

EPA Sole-Source Aquifer

Existing Empire Corridor

Alternative 125 Corridor

Alt. 125 as shown is a potential corridor used to analyze the potential operating characteristics, environmental impacts and cost for this speed (125 mph) threshold.

*

*

Exhibit G-9
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation 

11. Historic and Cultural Resources

11.1 Archaeology

11.1.1 Historic Context

The Paleo Indian Period (c. 10,500 B.C. - c. 8000 B.C.) represents the earliest known human 

occupation of the land area that now known as New York. Approximately 14,000 years ago the 

Wisconsin Glacier retreated from the area leading to the emergence of a cold dry tundra 

environment. Sea levels were considerably lower than modern levels during this period. 8 For 

many years, archaeologists characterized Paleo Indians as “big game hunters;” however, more 

recent studies have redefined how we think of these early Americans. The recovery of fish scales, 

charred nutshells and plant and animal remains, has resulted in a changing picture of the 

Paleoindian diet, settlement, and subsistence patterns suggesting a complex and flexible lifestyle 

among the earliest Americans. The highly mobile nomadic bands of this period specialized in 

hunting large game animals such as mammoth, moose-elk, bison, and caribou and gathering plant 

foods. It has been theorized that the end of the Paleo-Indian Period arose from the failure of overspecialized, big-game hunting (Snow 1980:150-157). Based on evidence from excavated PaleoIndian sites in the Northeast, there was a preference for high, well-drained areas in the vicinity of 

streams or wetlands.9 Sites have also been found near lithic sources, rock shelters and lower river 

terraces. 10

During the Archaic Period (c. 8000 B.C. - 1000 B.C.) a major shift occurred in the subsistence and 

settlement patterns of Native Americans. Archaic period peoples still relied on hunting and 

gathering for subsistence, but the emphasis shifted from hunting large animal species, which were 

becoming unavailable, to smaller game and collecting plants in a deciduous forest. The settlement 

pattern of the Archaic people consisted of small bands that occupied larger and relatively more 

permanent habitations sites along waterways. 11 Typically such sites are located on high ground 

overlooking water courses. This large period has been divided up into four smaller periods, the 

Early, Middle, Late and Terminal Archaic.

The environment during the Early Archaic (c. 8000 B.C. - 6000 B.C.) displayed a trend toward a

milder climate and the gradual emergence of a deciduous-coniferous forest. 12 The large 

Pleistocene fauna were gradually replaced by modern species such as elk, moose, bear, beaver, and 

deer. New species of plant material suitable for human consumption became abundant. The 

increasing diversification of utilized food sources is further demonstrated by a more complex tool 

kit, including bifurcated or basally notched projectile points and a wide variety of plant processing 

equipment such as grinding stones, mortars and pestles. A population increase took place during 

the Middle Archaic Period (c. 6000 - c. 4000 B.C.), which is characterized by a moister and warmer 

climate and the emergence of an oak-hickory forest. The settlement pattern during this period 

displays specialized sites and increasing cultural complexity. The exploitation of the diverse range 

8 /Boesch, Eugene J. Archaeological Evaluation and Sensitivity Assessment of Staten Island, New York. Prepared for the New York City 

Landmarks Preservation Commission. 1994.

9 /Boesch, Eugene J. Archaeological Evaluation and Sensitivity Assessment of Staten Island, New York. Prepared for the New York City 

Landmarks Preservation Commission. 1994.

10 /Ritchie, William A. The Archaeology of New York State (Revised Edition). Harrison: Harbor Hill Books. 1980,

11 /Boesch, Eugene J. Archaeological Evaluation and Sensitivity Assessment of Staten Island, New York. Prepared for the New York City 

Landmarks Preservation Commission. 1994.

12 /Ritchie, William A. and Robert E. Funk,Evidence for Early Archaic Occupation on Staten Island. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 31 (3): 45-

60. 1971.

Page G-82 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation Tier 1 Draft EIS

of animal and plant resources continued with an increasing importance of aquatic resources such as 

mollusks and fish.13 In addition to projectile points, grinding stones, mortars, and pestles, are found 

in Middle Archaic period sites. 14 Late Archaic people (c. 4000 - c. 1000 B.C.) were specialized 

hunter-gatherers who seasonally exploited a variety of upland and lowland settings. As the period 

progressed, the dwindling melt waters from disappearing glaciers and the reduced flow of streams and 

rivers promoted the formation of swamps and mudflats, congenial environments for migratory 

waterfowl, edible plants and shellfish. The new mixed hardwood forests of oak, hickory, chestnut, 

beech and elm attracted white-tailed deer, wild turkey, moose and beaver. The large herbivores of the 

Pleistocene were rapidly becoming extinct and the Archaic Indians depended increasingly on smaller 

game and the plants of the deciduous forest. The tool kit of these peoples included new projectile 

point types as well as milling equipment, stone axes, and adzes15. During the Terminal Archaic 

Period (c. 1700 B.C. - c. 1000 B.C.), native peoples developed new and radically different broad 

bladed projectile points (Boesch 1994a).

The Woodland Period (c. 1000 B.C. - 1600 A.D.) is generally divided into Early, Middle and Late 

Woodland on the basis of cultural materials and settlement-subsistence patterns. The Early 

Woodland was essentially a continuation of the tool design traditions of the Late Archaic. During 

this period, clay pottery vessels gradually replaced the soapstone bowls. Cord marked vessels 

became common during the Middle Woodland Period (c. A.D. 1 to c. 1000 A.D.). The Early and 

Middle Woodland periods display significant evidence for a change in settlement patterns toward a 

more sedentary lifestyle. The discovery of large storage pits and larger sites in general has fueled 

this theory. Some horticulture may have been utilized at this point but not to the extent that it was 

in the Late Woodland period. In the Late Woodland period (c. 1000 A.D. - 1600 A.D.), triangular 

projectile points such as the Levanna and Madison types, were common throughout the Northeast. 16 

Made both of local and non-local stones, these artifacts bear witness to the broad sphere of interaction 

between groups of native peoples in the Northeast. This period saw the emergence of collared 

ceramic vessels, many with decorations. Horticulture flourished during this period and with it, the 

appearance of large, permanent or semi-permanent villages. Plant and processing tools became 

increasingly common, suggesting an extensive harvesting of wild plant foods. Maize cultivation may 

have begun as early as 800 years ago. The bow and arrow, replacing the spear and javelin, pottery 

vessels instead of soap stone ones, and pipe smoking, were all introduced at this time. A semisedentary culture, the Woodland Indians moved seasonally between villages within palisaded

enclosures and campsites, hunting deer, turkey, raccoon, muskrat, ducks and other game and fishing 

with dug-out boats, bone hooks, harpoons and nets with pebble sinkers. Their shellfish refuse heaps, 

called "middens," sometimes reached immense proportions. 17

11.1.2 Methodology

As noted in Chapter 4, information concerning the location and character of previously-identified 

archaeological sites in the direct APEs was collected through a review of the site files of SHPO and 

NYSM. Exhibit G-10 identifies the number and type of sites in each county in the direct APEs for the 

13 /Snow, Dean R. The Archaeology of New England. Academic Press: New York. 1980.

14 /Boesch, Eugene J. Archaeological Evaluation and Sensitivity Assessment of Staten Island, New York. Prepared for the New York City 

Landmarks Preservation Commission. 1994.

15 /Boesch, Eugene J. Archaeological Evaluation and Sensitivity Assessment of Staten Island, New York. Prepared for the New York City 

Landmarks Preservation Commission. 1994.

16 /Lenik, Edward J. “Cultural Contact and Trade in Prehistoric Staten Island.” Proceedings of the Staten Island Institute of Arts and 

Sciences, vol. 34, no. 1. 1989, 27.

17 /Ritchie, William A. The Archaeology of New York State (Revised Edition). Harrison: Harbor Hill Books. 1980, 80, 267.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page G-83

New York State Department of Transportation 

 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation 

90/110 Study Area and the 125 Study Area. To assist in the Tier 1 analysis, the sites were grouped 

into various basic site type categories developed in coordination with SHPO. NYSM sites have been 

divided into point and polygon sites. In general, NYSM polygon sites are mapped as polygons and 

typically denote sites that were identified less recently and whose boundaries are not clearly 

defined. NYSM point sites were typically identified more recently. 

The previously-identified Native American sites in the direct APEs were grouped into the following 

site type categories:

• Burial Site/Mound; • Pictograph/Petroglyph;

• Campsite/Workshop; • Quarry; 

• Cave/Rockshelter; • Stray Find/ Traces of Occupation;

• Habitation/Village Site; • Trail; 

• Midden; • Unknown.

• Other;

Historic-period sites types located in the direct APEs were fit into the following broad historic site 

categories: 

 

• Cemetery/Burial/Funerary; • Transportation/ Infrastructure;

• Domestic; • Other;

• Industrial/Commercial; • Unspecified/Unknown.

• Maritime; 

11.1.3 Direct APE: 90/110 Study Area

A total of 166 previously-identified archaeological sites have been identified within the direct APE 

for the 90/110 Study Area that extends along the Empire Corridor South/West and the Niagara 

Branch. Of these sites, 47 are SHPO archaeological sites,117 are NYSM sites (13 point sites and 104 

polygon sites), and two are sites identified by the Oneida Nation (Sites 1 and 2). There are a total of 

36 burial/habitation sites.

11.1.4 Direct APE: 125 Study Area

A total of 126 previously-identified archaeological sites have been identified within the direct APE 

for the 125 Study Area that extends along the Empire Corridor South/West and the Niagara Branch. 

Of these, 27 are SHPO archaeological sites, 96 are NYSM sites (8 point sites and 88 polygon sites), 

and three are sites identified by the Oneida Nation (Sites 3 through 5). There are a total of 27 

burial/habitation sites. 

Page G-84 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation Tier 1 Draft EIS

Exhibit G-10—Catalog of Previously Identified Archaeological Sites within the Direct APEs

SHPO Sites NYSM Point Sites NYSM Polygon Sites Oneida Nation 

Sites

90/110 

Study Area

125 

Study Area

90/110 

Study Area

125 

Study Area

90/110 

Study Area

125 Study 

Area

90/110 

Study 

Area

125 

Study 

Area

New York N (U); H (O); 

N (M)

N (U); H (O); 

N (M)

N (H, M); N (M); 

N (C); N (R)

N (H, M); N 

(M); N (C); N 

(R)

Bronx N (M) N (M)

Westchester N (R); N (M); 

2 N (U)

N (R); N (M); 

2 N (U)

2 N (U); 3 N (H, 

B); 4 N (H); N 

(B); 3 N (S); N 

(M); 2 N (C) 

2 N (U); 3 N (H, 

B); 4 N (H); N 

(B); 3 N (S); N 

(M); 2 N (C)

Putnam N (C); H (U); N 

(B); N (H); N (S)

N (C); H (U); N 

(B); N (H); N 

(S)

Dutchess N (C); N (S); H 

(U); H (I, M)

N (C); N (S); 

H (U); H (I, 

M)

4 N (U); 2 N (C); 

2 N (C, B); 5 N 

(H); N (Q); 6 N 

(S)

4 N (U); 2 N 

(C); 2 N (C, B); 

5 N (H); N (Q); 

6 N (S)

Columbia N (C); N (R) N (C); N (R) N (U) N (U) 4 N (C); N (H); 2 

N (U)

4 N (C); N (H); 

2 N (U)

Rensselaer H (I); 2 N (C); 

H (M, I) 

H (I); 2 N 

(C); H (M, I)

N (S) N (S)

Albany H (I) N (C)

Schenectady N (U); X; 2 H 

(U); N (B)

N (B); 2 N (U); N 

(S); N (H); N (C)

N (U); N (C)

Schoharie N (U)

Montgomery 4 N (U); 8 X; 

N (C); 2 H (U); 

2 N (P); H (I)

N (S); N (S), 

H (U)

N (S); 2 N 

(U); 3 N (H); 

N (B, H)

N (U); 5 N (H); N 

(C); N (P); N (B); 

N (S); 3 N (T)

Herkimer X; N (U); H 

(M)

H (B) N (H); 4 N (S, T)

Oneida 3 N (C); N (B) N (H); N (B); N 

(C)

Site 1;

Site 2

Site 3

Madison N (C) 2 N (S) Site 4; 

Site 5

Onondaga H (I); H (U) 2 H (D); H (I) N (S) N (H); N (C, H); 

4 N (S); N (C); N 

(U)

N (C); 2 N (H);

N (C); N (C, H); 

4 N (S); N (U)

Cayuga N (U) N (S); N (B)

Wayne N (S) N (S); N (C)

Monroe N (B); N (U); N 

(T, S); N (C); N 

(S)

N (B); N (U); N 

(T, S); N (C)

Genesee 2 N (C, S); N 

(S); H (D)

N (S) N (C) 2 N (T) N (C)

Erie N (U); H (F) N (U); H (F); 

2 N (C); N 

(C, S)

2 N (S); N (T); N 

(C) 

2 N (S); N (T); 

N (C); N (S)

Niagara H (F) H (F) N (C); N (H) ; N 

(T)

N (C); N (H) ; N 

(T)

TOTALS 47 27 13 8 104 88 2 3

Note: Native American Sites (N): (B) Burial; (C) Camp site/Tool Production/ Workshop; (H) Habitation/Village/Hamlet; 

 (M) Midden; (O) Other; (P) Petroglyph/Pictograph; (Q) Quarry; (R) Rockshelter; (S) Stray Finds/"Traces of 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page G-85

New York State Department of Transportation 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation 

 Occupation”; (T) Trail; (U) Unspecified/Unknown

 Historic-Period Sites (H): (B) Burial/Cemetery; (D) Domestic; (F) Transportation/Infrastructure/Utilities; (I) Industrial 

 or Commercial Deposits; (M) Maritime; (O) Other; (U) Unspecified/Unknown

 (X): Unknown whether Precontact or Historic Period

 Resources shown in bold indicate archaeological sites located only in the direct APE for new track proposed for the 125 Alternative

11.2 Architectural Resources

11.2.1 Historic Context

The earliest transportation networks in the State of New York consisted of waterways and Native 

American trails. The Hudson River was a natural highway for the region, and in the 1620s the 

Dutch established New Amsterdam at its mouth and built Fort Orange at the mouth of its principal 

tributary, the Mohawk River. Trading posts were defined between these two points and the 

surrounding area became known as the province of New Netherland. In 1664, New Netherland 

became the province of New York under British establishment.

Ferries, canals, and railroads have all been important to the development of transportation in New 

York State. Canals and railroads dominated transportation development in the first half of the 19th 

century. Efficient transportation was an important means of getting goods to market and a major 

factor in the value of land in different parts of the state. The Erie Canal, completed in 1825, spurred 

the westward migration of American settlers, opened the only trade route west of the Appalachians, 

and secured New York as the preeminent commercial city in the United States.18 As a result of the 

increase in trade and traffic, the cities of Albany, Syracuse, Rochester, and Buffalo were formed. 

During the same period, the first railroad company in New York State, the Mohawk and Hudson, 

began operation between Albany and Schenectady in 1831.19 The success of this railroad sparked a 

rail boom. Money flowed into lines that linked other Erie Canal towns, and within a decade through 

service was available from Albany to Buffalo.20 In 1837, the Buffalo & Niagara Falls Railroad also 

began operations, and the 22-mile stretch became a three mile journey powered by a wood-stoked 

steam locomotive. In 1852, the railroad developed tracks west of the Erie Canal, and in December 

of 1853, the Buffalo & Niagara Falls railroad was leased to the newly founded New York Central 

Railroad.21 During the Civil War, the Mississippi River was closed to commercial traffic. As a result, 

passengers and freight increased on established east-west railroads, such as the Erie and New York 

Central. The Erie Railroad became the first through line to the Midwest and Great Lakes in 1861, 

with financial control of lines to Buffalo and Chicago.22 Following in 1869, Cornelius Vanderbilt, 

merged the Hudson River Railroad and the New York Central Railroad into the New York Central 

and Hudson River Railroad.

18/ New York State Canal Corporation. Unlock the Legend of The New York State Canal System.” Pamphlet. 1999.

19/ Ellis, Edward Robb. The Epic of New York City. New York: Old Town Books. 1966, 259.

20/ Burrows, Edwin G. and Mike Wallace. Gotham, A History of New York City to 1898. New York: Oxford University Press. 1999, 564. 21/ “Buffalo & Niagara Falls Railroad 1834.” Website Niagara Frontier.com, accessed August 24, 2011 

<http://www.niagarafrontier.com/railroadhistory.html#B7>. 2011..

22/ A.G. Lichtenstein & Associates, Inc. “New Jersey Historic Bridge Survey.” 1994, 26.

Page G-86 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation

 
Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation Tier 1 Draft EIS

11.2.2 Overview of APE

Previously-identified architectural resources located within the direct and indirect APEs for the 

90/110 Study Area and the 125 Study Area are summarized in Exhibit 4-27 in Chapter 4 of the EIS 

and Exhibit G-11 respectively. The NHLs, S/NR-listed- and -eligible historic districts are noted in 

the text below. Detailed tables listing the S/NR-listed and -eligible individual resources are 

provided in Exhibit G-12, and Exhibit G-13, respectively. The approximate locations of these 

resources are illustrated in Exhibit G-14, Historic and Cultural Maps (3 of 3). 

11.2.3 Direct APE: 90/110 Study Area

A total of 79 previously-identified architectural resources are located in the direct APE for the 

90/110 Study Area that extends along the Empire Corridor South/West and the Niagara Branch. 

These resources are summarized by county in Exhibit 4-27 in Chapter 4 of the EIS. Of the 79 

architectural resources, two resources are NHLs: Fort Klock in St. Johnsville, Montgomery Country 

and the Hudson River Historic District in Dutchess and Columbia Counties. Fort Klock was 

designated a National Historic Landmark District by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior in 1973. Fort 

Klock, a fortified stone homestead built in 1750, is part of a 30-acre complex that includes the 

historic homestead, a renovated Colonial Dutch Barn, blacksmith shop, and 19th century 

schoolhouse. The Hudson River National Historic Landmark District was designated by the U.S. 

Secretary of the Interior in 1990. The 32-square-mile district stretches from Germantown in 

Columbia County to Hyde Park in Dutchess County. It includes over 40 riverfront estates, two 

villages, four hamlets, and significant designed landscapes and farmlands.

There are 53 S/NR-listed resources within the direct APE. Of these, 41 are individually listed while 

12 are historic districts. The 53 individually listed resources are identified in Exhibit G-12. The 12 

historic districts include:

• Putnam County (2 total) 

o Cold Spring Historic District - comprised of 208 contributing buildings and 11 

noncontributing buildings, the earliest of which dates from 1780. The majority of the 

buildings in the district date from the mid-19th century.

o Garrison Landing Historic District - the 53-acre district contains 15 buildings and one 

structure consisting mainly of a small commercial and residential area located between 

what is now the Metro-North Hudson Line and the Hudson River in Garrison, New York. Its 

buildings were mostly erected in the 1850s, around the time the Hudson River Railroad, 

later the New York Central, laid the tracks.

• Dutchess County (2 total) 

o Stone Street Historic District - composed of a one-acre site containing four houses 

constructed in the mid-19th century in the vernacular Greek Revival and Second Empire 

styles.

o Wheeler Hill Historic District – composed of 49 contributing buildings, 15 contributing 

sites, and four contributing structures, and encompasses the estates of Obercreek, 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page G-87

New York State Department of Transportation 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation 

Elmhurst, Edge Hill, Henry Suydam, William Crosby, and Carnwarth Farms that were 

developed between 1740 and 1940.

• Columbia County (2 total) 

o Clermont Estates Historic District - composed of 44 contributing buildings, was subsumed 

into the Hudson River National Historic Landmark District in 1990.

o Hudson Historic District - consists of 756 contributing properties in a 139-acre area 

stretching from the Hudson River to the town of Hudson’s eastern boundary.

• Rensselaer County (1 total) 

o Schodack Landing Historic District - consists of 86 contributing buildings located in the 

hamlet of Schodack Landing and includes a variety of buildings dated from the 18th 

through early 20th centuries.

• Albany County (1 total) 

o Broadway-Livingston Avenue Historic District - consists of 20 contributing buildings, 

including a collection of two-and three-story rowhouses built 1829-1876 and a railroad 

bridge built in 1900.

• Schenectady County (1 total) 

o Stockade Historic District - district is located in the northwest corner of Schenectady on the 

banks of the Mohawk River, and contains a variety of Dutch and English 17th and 18th 

century buildings.

• Montgomery County (1 total) 

o Nelliston Historic District – consists of 56 contributing buildings on three residential 

streets developed between 1860 and 1890 and a 1902 railroad station.

• Monroe County (1 total) 

o Brown’s Race Historic District - located in Rochester along the Genesee River, the district 

contains 15 contributing buildings, 2 contributing structures, and 14 contributing sites in a 

primarily 19th century industrial complex.

• Genesee County (1 total) 

o Lake Street Historic District - located in Bergen, the district contains several of 

Romanesque Revival buildings from the last decades of the late 19th and early 20th 

centuries.

At least seven S/NR-listed resources directly associated with the railroad are located in the direct 

APE. These include the Bear Mountain Bridge and Toll House in Westchester County; the Croton 

North Railroad Station and the Philipse Manor Railroad Station in Westchester County; the 

Poughkeepsie Railroad Station and Hyde Park Railroad Station in Dutchess County; the New York 

Central Terminal in Buffalo, Erie County; and the Stuyvesant Railroad Station in Columbia County.

There are 24 resources that SHPO has previously determined S/NR-eligible within the direct APE. 

Of these, 20 are individual resources and four are historic districts. The 20 individual resources are 

identified inExhibit G-13. The four S/NR-eligible historic districts are: the Lord Burnham Factory 

Complex located in Westchester County (contains two historic resources); the non-contiguous New 

York Canal System Historic District located in Schenectady, Montgomery, Wayne, and Monroe 

Page G-88 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation Tier 1 Draft EIS

counties (contains 12 historic resources); the Little Falls Historic District located in Herkimer 

County (contains 10 historic resources); and the Seneca Industrial Center located in Erie County 

(contains seven historic resources).

At least four S/NR-eligible resources directly associated with the railroad are located in the direct 

APE. These include the Scarborough Railroad Station in Westchester County; the Metro-North 

Railroad Bridge (BIN 5524010) in Dutchess County; the Livingston Avenue Bridge in Rensselaer 

County; and the Oriskany Railroad Station in Oneida County.

It should be noted that approximately 350 bridges meeting the 50 year age criterion for S/NR 

eligibility are located within the existing railroad alignment and thus within the direct APE. Any 

bridges 50 years old or older would also be evaluated for potential S/NR eligibility as part of the 

Tier 2 analysis. In order to evaluate the significance of these bridges, an architectural historian 

would conduct a field visit and would perform documentary research. The New York State 

Department of Transportation’s Contextual Study of New York State’s pre-1961 Bridges (November 

1999), Evaluation of National Register Eligibility (January 2002), and Historic Bridge Management 

Plan (September 2002), would be consulted among other documentary sources.

11.2.4 Direct APE: 125 Study Area

A total of 61 previously-identified architectural resources are located in the direct APE for the 125 

Study Area that extends along the Empire Corridor South/West and the Niagara Branch. These 

resources are summarized by county in Exhibit 4-27 in Chapter 4 of the EIS. Of the 61, one is an 

NHL: the Hudson River Historic District in Dutchess and Columbia Counties (described above).

There are 47 S/NR-listed resources within the direct APE. Of these, 39 are individually-listed and 

eight are historic districts. The 39 individually-listed resources are identified in Exhibit G-12. Three 

individually-listed S/NR resources are located within the portion of the direct APE where new track 

is proposed for this alternative. These include: the Robert Liddle Farmhouse (MP 167) in 

Schenectady County; the Deferriere House (MP 253) in Madison County; and the Warren Hull 

House (MP 411) located in Erie County. The eight historic districts include: Cold Spring Historic 

District; Garrison Landing Historic District; Stone Street Historic District; Wheeler Hill Historic 

District; Clermont Estates Historic District; Hudson Historic District; Schodack Landing Historic 

District; and Brown’s Race Historic District (described above). There are no S/NR-listed historic 

districts located in the portion of the direct APE where new track is proposed.

There are 13 resources in the direct APE that SHPO has previously determined S/NR-eligible. Of 

these, 10 are individual resources and three are historic districts. None of the S/NR-eligible 

resources are located in the portion of the direct APE where new track is proposed. These 

resources are all located in areas where track for this alternative would overlap with existing track. 

The 10 individual resources are identified in Exhibit G-13. The three S/NR-eligible historic districts 

are: the Lord Burnham Factory Complex located in Westchester County (contains two historic 

resources); the non-contiguous New York Canal System Historic District located in Schenectady, 

Montgomery, Wayne, and Monroe counties (contains 12 historic resources); and the Seneca 

Industrial Center located in Erie County (contains seven historic resources).

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page G-89

New York State Department of Transportation 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation 

11.2.5 Indirect APE: 90/110 Study Area

A total of 356 previously-identified architectural resources are located in the indirect APE for the 

90/110 Study Area that extends along the Empire Corridor South/West and the Niagara Branch. 

These resources are summarized in Exhibit G-11. Of the 356 architectural resources, four are NHLs. 

These include the two NHLs described above, the General Electric Research Laboratory in 

Schenectady County, and Sunnyside in Westchester County. The General Electric Research 

Laboratory is the first industrial lab research facility established in 1900. Sunnyside, formerly the 

home of noted early American author Washington Irving, is a historic house set on 10 acres 

alongside the Hudson River in Tarrytown. 

There are 146 S/NR-listed resources within the indirect APE for the 90/110 Study Area. Of these, 

122 are individually listed and 27 are historic districts. The 122 individually listed resources are 

identified in Exhibit G-12. The 27 historic districts in the indirect APE include the 12 resources 

within the direct APE (described above) and the additional 15 described below:

• New York County (2 total) 

o Riverside Drive – West 80th-81st Streets Historic District - contains 32 rowhouses and 

town houses of the 1890s and three turn-of-the-century tenements, exhibiting a variety of 

architectural influences, and one later neo-Classical style apartment building of the 1920s.

o Riverside Drive – West 105th Street Historic District - district is an L-shaped area 

extending along one block of West 105th Street, Riverside Drive and a part of the south 

side of West 106th Street, comprising 30 buildings on a block and a half.

• Westchester County (1 total) 

o Scarborough Historic District - district contains 26 contributing buildings, two contributing 

sites, and one contributing structure. They are associated with three estates, a school 

complex, a cemetery, and two religious properties.

• Dutchess County (3 total) 

o Mill Street-North Clover Street Historic District - district is 27 acres in size, located 

between downtown Poughkeepsie and the Hudson River. Contains approximately 139

historic buildings dating primarily to the mid-19th century.

o Union Street Historic District - district is an eight-block area located southwest of 

downtown Poughkeepsie dating to the late-18th century.

o Main Street Historic District - the district, composed of six contributing structures 

including three houses and three commercial buildings, is located just west of the train 

station. The six buildings located on a single acre are an intact remnant of the hamlet as it 

developed in the mid-19th century, prior to the Hudson River Railroad's construction, 

which cut it in half.

• Albany County (1 total) 

o Clinton Avenue Historic District - the district is a 70-acre site in Albany composed of 

approximately 600 contributing buildings consisting primarily of 19th-century row houses 

in a variety of architectural styles.

• Schenectady County (1 total) 

o Union Street Historic District - the 65-acre district area includes 184 buildings built over 

the course of the 19th century.

Page G-90 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation Tier 1 Draft EIS

• Oneida County (1 total) 

o Lower Genesee Street Historic District - located in Utica, the district contains 45 

contributing buildings dating from 1830 to 1929 north of the city center.

• Madison County (1 total) 

o South Peterboro Street Commercial Historic District - The district, located in Canastota, 

contains 20 contributing primarily two and three-story brick buildings built between 1870 

and 1930.

• Monroe County (5 total) 

o Bridge Square Historic District - district contains 24 contributing buildings that consist 

primarily of two-, three-, and four-story brick masonry commercial and industrial 

buildings dating from 1826 to 1928.

o East Avenue Historic District - the district, located in Rochester, consists of approximately 

700 buildings dating from the 19th and early 20th centuries.

o Madison Square-West Main Street Historic District - located in Rochester, the district 

consists of 102 contributing structures and two contributing sites. 65 of the contributing 

structures are residential, with three contributing dependencies. Also in the district are 24 

contributing commercial buildings and nine industrial buildings.

o St. Paul-North Water Streets Historic District - district consists of a relatively intact cluster 

of 17 commercial, manufacturing, and warehouse structures in Rochester.

o State Street Historic District - district consists of the last surviving continuous row of 19th 

century masonry commercial buildings within Rochester's Inner Loop. They were 

developed between 1825 and 1900 and the row forms an unpretentious unbroken wall of 

12 buildings.

At least eight S/NR-listed resources directly associated with the railroad are located within the 

indirect APE. These include the seven resources within the direct APE (described above) and the 

Andrews Street Bridge in Rochester, Monroe County.

There are 203 architectural resources within the indirect APE for the 90/110 Study Area that SHPO 

has previously determined eligible for S/NR listing. Of these, 183 are individual resources and 20 

are historic districts. The 183 individual resources are identified in Exhibit G-13. The 20 historic 

districts include the four districts described in the direct APE and the additional 16 described 

below:

• New York County – Broadway-Riverside Drive Historic District (contains one resource); 

Riverside Drive–West 135th-136th Streets Historic District (contains five resources); 

Riverside–West End Historic District (contains 30 resources); Upper Broadway Historic District 

(contains one resource); and West End Collegiate Historic District (contains 21 resources)

• Westchester County - Anaconda Wire & Cable Company (contains three resources)

• Montgomery County - Amsterdam East Main Street Historic District (contains nine resources); 

and Fonda Fairgrounds & Speedway Historic District (contains two resources)

• Monroe County - Birch Crescent Historic District (contains 12 resources); Prince Alexander 

Historic District (contains 12 resources); and Public Market Historic District (contains ten 

resources) 

• Onondaga County - New York State Fairgrounds Historic District (contains one resource)

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page G-91

New York State Department of Transportation 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation 

• Wayne County - Village of Clyde Historic District (contains eight resources)

• Genesee County - Village of Bergen Historic District (contains five resources)

• Erie County - Joseph Ellicott Downtown Historic District (contains one resource); and Wende 

Correctional Facility Historic District (contains one resource)

At least eight S/NR-eligible resources directly associated with the railroad are located within the 

indirect APE. These include the four resources within the direct APE (described above), and the 

Yonkers Railroad Station and the Tarrytown Railroad Station in Westchester County; the MidHudson Bridge in Dutchess County; and the Rip Van Winkle Bridge in Columbia County.

Exhibit G-11—Architectural Resources within the Indirect APEs

County NHL

S/NR-Listed 

Resources - 

individual

S/NR-Listed 

Resources - 

districts

S/NRListed 

Resources

Total

S/NREligible 

Resourcesindividual

S/NREligible 

Resources 

– districts

S/NREligible 

Resources

Total

Total 

Resources

90/1

10 125

90/

110 125

90/

110 125

90/

110 125

90/

110 125

90/

110 125

90/

110 125

90/

110 125

New York 15 15 2 2 17 17 47 47 5 5 52 52 69 69

Bronx 4 4 4 4 0 0 4 4

Westchester 1 1 17 17 1 1 18 18 19 19 2 2 21 21 39 39

Putnam 5 5 2 2 7 7 0 0 7 7

Dutchess 27 27 5 5 32 32 4 4 4 4 36 36

Columbia 5 5 2 2 7 7 2 2 2 2 9 9

Greene 0 0 0 0 0 0

Rensselaer 1 1 1 1 2 2 31 12 31 12 33 14

Albany 3 1 2 5 1 3 1 3 1 8 2

Schenectady 1 4 2 2 6 2 1 0 1 6 3

Montgomery 1 10 1 11 0 40 2 42 0 52 0

Herkimer 4 4 0 13 1 14 0 18 0

Oneida 6 1 7 0 2 2 0 9 0

Madison 6 1 1 7 1 0 0 6 1

Onondaga 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2

Cayuga 0 0 0 0 0 0

Wayne 1 1 0 1 1 0 2 0

Monroe 6 6 6 6 12 12 14 13 3 3 17 16 28 28

Genesee 1 1 0 1 1 2 4 3 4

Erie 4 5 4 5 4 4 3 2 7 5 11 10

Niagara 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 6 3

Multiple 

Counties 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1

TOTALS 4 2 122 93 27 19 149 112 183 106 20 14 203 120 356 234

Note: Counties are listed from south to north, then east to west.

Resources that fall within the direct APE are also within the boundaries of the indirect APE.

The 90/110 Study Area is used for analysis of Alternatives 90A, 90B, and 110 and consists of the existing 464-mile long Empire Corridor 

alignment. The 125 Study Area is used for analysis of Alternative 125 and consists of portions of the existing Empire Corridor and new 

alignment and is 450 miles long.

11.2.6 Indirect APE: 125 Study Area

A total of 234 previously-identified architectural resources are located in the indirect APE for the 

125 Study Area that extends along the Empire Corridor South/West and the Niagara Branch. These 

Page G-92 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation Tier 1 Draft EIS

resources are summarized by county in Exhibit G-11. Of the 234 resources, two are NHLs, including 

the Hudson River Historic District in Dutchess and Columbia Counties and Sunnyside, located in 

Westchester County (both described above).

There are 112 S/NR-listed resources within the indirect APE. Of these, 93 are individually listed and 

19 are historic districts. The 112 individually listed resources are identified in Exhibit G-12. Three 

individually-listed S/NR resources are located within the portion of the indirect APE where new 

track is proposed for this alternative. These are: Nut Grove (MP 144) in Albany County; and the 

Reformed Presbyterian Church Parsonage (MP 169) and the Halladay House (MP 172) in 

Schenectady County. The 19 historic districts include the eight resources within the direct APE 

(described above) and the following additional 11 districts: Riverside Drive – West 80th-81st 

Streets Historic District; Riverside Drive – West 105th Street Historic District; Mill Street-North 

Clover Street Historic District; Union Street Historic District; Main Street Historic District; Bridge 

Square Historic District; East Avenue Historic District; Madison Square-West Main Street Historic 

District; St. Paul-North Water Streets Historic District; State Street Historic District (described 

above). There are no S/NR-listed historic districts located in the portion of the indirect APE where 

new track is proposed.

There are 120 resources in the indirect APE that SHPO has previously determined S/NR-eligible. Of 

these, 106 are individual resources and 14 are historic districts. None of the S/NR-eligible historic 

districts are located in the portion of the indirect APE where new track is proposed. These 

resources are all located in areas where track for this alternative overlap with existing track. Two 

S/NR-eligible individual resources are located in the portion of the indirect APE where new track is 

proposed. These are: 924 New Scotland Road (MP 147) in Albany County; and U.S. 20 between 

Knight and Mudge Roads (MP 170.5) in Schenectady County.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page G-93

New York State Department of Transportation 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation 

Exhibit G-12—S/NR-Listed Individual Resources within the APEs

Name Location County 90/110 

Study Area

125 

Study Area

Direct APE

Chapel of the Intercession 

Complex and Trinity Cemetery

550 W. 155th St. New York X

Chatsworth Apartments and Anex 340-346 West 72nd Street New York X

Riverside Park and Drive From 72nd St. to 129th St. New York X

U.S. General Post Office 8th Ave. between 31st and 33rd 

Sts.

New York X

Fonthill Castle and Administration 

Building of the College of Mount St. 

Vincent

W. 261st St. and Riverdale Ave. Bronx X

Bear Mountain Bridge and Toll 

House

NY 6/202 Westchester X

Brandreth Pill Factory Water St. Westchester X

Croton North Railroad Station Senasqua Rd. Westchester X

Lord and Burnham Building 2 Main Street Westchester X

Lyndhurst 635 S. Broadway Westchester X

Peekskill Freight Depot 41 South Water Street Westchester X

Philipse Manor Railroad Station Jct. of Riverside Dr. and Millard Westchester X

Standard House 50 Hudson Avenue Westchester X

Sunnyside Sunnyside Lane Westchester X

Trevor, John Bond, House 511 Warburton Ave. Westchester X

Yonkers Trolley Barn 92 Main Street Westchester X

Eagle's Rest NY 9-D Putnam X

U.S. Military Academy NY 218 Putnam X

West Point Foundry Foundry Cove between NY 90 

and NY Central RR tracks

Putnam X

Capt. Moses W. Collyer House River Rd. S. Dutchess X

Cornelius Carman House River Rd. S. Dutchess X

Home of Franklin D. Roosevelt 

National Historic Site

2 mi. S of Hyde Park on U.S. 9 Dutchess X

Hyde Park Railroad Station River Rd. Dutchess X

Innis Dye Works, Poughkeepsie 

MRA

80 North Water Street Dutchess X

Mount Gulian N of Beacon off I-84 Dutchess X

National Biscuit Company CartonMaking and Printing PlantBeekman Street Dutchess X

Poughkeepsie Railroad Bridge Spans Hudson River Dutchess X

Poughkeepsie Railroad Station Main St. Dutchess X

Rhinecliff Hotel Schatzell Ave. Dutchess X

Roosevelt Point Cottage and 

Boathouse

River Point Rd. at the Hudson 

River

Dutchess X

Vanderbilt Mansion National 

Historic Site

N edge of Hyde Park, U.S. 9 Dutchess X

Oak Hill N of Linlithgo on Oak Hill Rd. Columbia X

Stuyvesant Railroad Station Riverview Street Columbia X

Joachim Staats House and Gerrit 

Staats Ruin

N of Castleton-on-Hudson Rensselaer X

Robert Liddle Farmhouse Little Dale Farm Road Schenectady X

Fort Klock 2 mi. E of St. Johnsville on NY 5 Montgomery X

Guy Park W. Main St. Montgomery X

Montgomery County Farm 

(Montgomery County Buildings 

Thematic Group)

NY 5 Montgomery X

Palatine Bridge Freight House E of Palatine Bridge on NY 5 Montgomery X

Union Station Main St. between John and 1st Oneida X

Page G-94 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation Tier 1 Draft EIS

Exhibit G-12—S/NR-Listed Individual Resources within the APEs

Name Location County 90/110 

Study Area

125 

Study Area

Sts.

Deferriere House 2089 Genesee St. Madison X

New York Central Terminal 495 Paderewski Dr. Erie X

Waren Hull House 5976 Genesee St. Erie X

U.S. Customhouse 2245 Whirlpool St. Niagara X

Indirect APE

69th Street Transfer Bridge West 69th Street at Hudson 

River

New York X

Delta Psi, Alpha Chapter 434 Riverside Drive New York X

Fort Tryon Park and the Cloisters Broadway and Dyckman St. New York X

General Grant National Memorial Riverside Dr. and W. 122nd St. New York X

Isaac L. Rice Mansion 346 W. 89th St. New York X

Jeffrey's Hook Lighthouse Fort Washington Park New York X

Red House 350 W. 85th St. New York X

Schinasi House 351 Riverside Dr. New York X

St. Walburgas Academy 630 Riverside Drive New York X

Townhouses at 352 and 353 

Riverside Drive

352-353 Riverside Drive New York X

Union Theological Seminary W. 120th St. and Broadway New York X

Colgate, Robert, House 5225 Sycamore Ave. Bronx X

Dodge, William E., House 690 W. 247th St. Bronx X

Wave Hill 675 W. 252nd St. Bronx X

Bear Mountain Bridge Rd. NY 6/202, between Bear Mt. 

Bridge

Westchester X

Hyatt-Livingston House 152 Broadway Westchester X

Nuits Hudson Rd. and Clifton Pl. Westchester X

Old Croton Aqueduct N from Yonkers to New Croton 

Dam

Westchester X

Untermyer Park Warburton Ave. and N. 

Broadway S. of Jct. with Odell 

Ave.

Westchester X

US Post Office—Yonkers 79--81 Main St. Westchester X

Rock Lawn and Carriage House NY 9-D Putnam X

Wilson House Lower Station Rd. Putnam X

Abraham Brower House 2 Water St. Dutchess X

Adolph Brower House 1 Water St. Dutchess X

Bannerman's Island Arsenal Pollepel Island, off NY 9-D Dutchess X

Chelsea Grammar School Liberty St. Dutchess X

Church of the Holy Comforter 13 Davies St. Dutchess X

Free Church Parsonage Jct. of William and Grinnell Sts. Dutchess X

Hoffman House, Poughkeepsie 

MRA

North Water Street Dutchess X

Morton Memorial Library Kelly St. Dutchess X

O'Brien General Store and Post 

Office

Jct. of Schatzell Ave. and Charles 

St.

Dutchess X

Old St. Peter's Roman Catholic 

Church and Rectory, Poughkeepsie 

MRA

97 Mill Street Dutchess X

Pelton Mill 110 Mill St. Dutchess X

Riverside Methodist Church and 

Parsonage

Charles and Orchard Sts. Dutchess X

Shay's Warehouse and Stable Rear of 32 Point St. Dutchess X

William Shay Double House 18 Point St. Dutchess X

Zion Memorial Chapel 37 Point St. Dutchess X

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page G-95

New York State Department of Transportation 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation 

Exhibit G-12—S/NR-Listed Individual Resources within the APEs

Name Location County 90/110 

Study Area

125 

Study Area

Clermont Clermont State Park Columbia X

Requa House Ridge Rd Columbia X

Wiswall, Oliver, House W of Hudson Columbia X

Buildings at 744, 746, 748, 750 

Broadway

744-750 Broadway Albany X

Church of the Holy Innocents 275 N. Pearl St. Albany X

Lil's Diner 893 Broadway Albany X

Nut Grove McCarty Avenue Albany X

Central Fire Station Erie Blvd. Schenectady X

F.F. Proctor Theatre and Arcade 432 State St. Schenectady X

General Electric Research 

Laboratory

General Electric main plant Schenectady X

Hallady Farmhouse US 20 Schenectady X

Reformed Presbyterian Church 

Parsonage

Duanesburg Churches Road Schenectady X

Swart House and Tavern 120 Johnson Road Schenectady X

Fort Johnson Jct. of NY 5 and 67 Montgomery X

Frey House West Grand Street (NY 5) Montgomery X

Nellis Tavern SR 5 Montgomery X

New Courthouse, Montgomery 

County Buildings Thematic Group

Montgomery X

Walrath-Van Horne House West Main Street Montgomery X

Webster Wagner House E. Grand St. Montgomery X

Herkimer County Trust Company 

Building

Corner of Ann and Albany Sts. Herkimer X

Herkimer House Near NY 5 S. Herkimer X

Palatine German Frame House 

(Wilder House)

4217 NY 5 Herkimer X

US Post Office-Little Falls 25 W. Main St. Herkimer X

Byington Mill (Frisbie & Stansfield 

Knitting Company)

421--423 Broad St. Oneida X

Doyle Hardware Building 330--334 Main St. Oneida X

Hieber, John C. & Co., Building 311 Main Street Oneida X

Hurd & Fitzgerald Building 400 Main St. Oneida X

Utica Daily Press Building 310--312 Main St. Oneida X

Canastota Public Library 102 W. Center St. Madison X

House at 115 South Main Street 115 South Main Street Madison X

House at 233 James Street 233 James St. Madison X

United Church of Canastota 144 W. Center St. Madison X

Residence at 203 South Main 

Street, Canastota MRA

203 South Main Street Madison X

US Post Office—Canastota 118 S. Peterboro St. Madison X

Alvord House N of Syracuse on Berwick Rd. Onondaga X

Butler Center Methodist Episcopal 

Church*

Butler Center and Washburn 

Roads

Wayne X

East Palmyra Presbyterian Church 2102 Whitbeck Road Wayne X

Andrews Street Bridge Andrews St. at Genesee River Monroe X

Brick Presbyterian Church 

Complex, Inner Loop MRA

121 N. Fitzhugh St. Monroe X

Federal Building N. Fitzhugh and Church Streets Monroe X

German United Evangelical Church 

Complex, Inner Loop MRA

60-90 Bittner St. Monroe X

Leopold Street Shule 30 Leopold St. Monroe X

Washington Street Rowhouses 30-32 N. Washington St. Monroe X

Buffalo Gas Light Company Works 249 W. Genesee St. Erie X

Page G-96 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation Tier 1 Draft EIS

Exhibit G-12—S/NR-Listed Individual Resources within the APEs

Name Location County 90/110 

Study Area

125 

Study Area

Delaware Park-Front Park System Front Park, Porter Ave. to 

Symphony Cir., N along 

Richmond Ave., Bidwell Pkwy., 

Gates Cir. and Delaware Park

Erie X

Kibler High School 284 Main Street Erie X

Riviera Theatre 27 Webster St. Niagara X

US Post Office--North Tonawanda 141 Goundry St. Niagara X

Note: Resources that fall within the direct APE are also within the boundaries of the indirect APE.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page G-97

New York State Department of Transportation 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation 

Exhibit G-13—S/NR-Eligible Individual Resources within the APEs

Name/Location County 90/110 

Study Area

125 

Study Area

Direct APE

Former NY Central Railroad Substation No. 11; 2350-236 

Twelfth Avenue

New York X

Lincoln Tunnel (Route 495) New York X

Present Centro Maria; 539 West 54th Street New York X

21 Alexander Street Westchester X

Dobbs Ferry Railroad Station-Hudson Line; Station Plaza Westchester X

Scarborough Railroad Station-Hudson Line Westchester X

Metro-North Railroad Bridge BIN5524010; Dennings Avenue 

Extension

Dutchess X

Prinns Insurance/Old I.O.O.F; 56 South Main Street Rensselaer X

Livingston Avenue Bridge Rensselaer X

BIN 77090212 Railroad Bridge Albany X

BIN 7092900 Railroad Bridge Albany X

Cut Limestone Retaining Wall and Bridge Abutment; NY 10 Montgomery X

Hexagonal Limestone Well Shelter; NY 5 Montgomery X

H.D.F. Veeder House; 3642 NY 5 Montgomery X

West Main Street; North Side–20 Miles North of Ann Street Montgomery X

West Main Street; Culvert–Dove Creek Under Railroad Montgomery X

Gilbert Knitting Mill; 151 Elizabeth Street Herkimer X

Railroad Station; River Street; West Side Oneida X

Coldwater Station Monroe X

60 South Main Street Monroe X

Indirect APE

125 Riverside Drive New York X

352 Riverside Drive New York X

353 Riverside Drive New York X

247 West 30th Street New York X

259-261 West 30th Street New York X

236-248 West 31st Street New York X

406-426 West 31st Street New York X

424 West 33rd Street New York X

500 West 37th Street New York X

Cheyenne Diner; 411 Ninth Avenue New York X

Fairmont Building; 239-241 West 30th Street New York X

Former 53rd Street Industrial School; 552 West 53rd Street New York X

Former Franco-American Baking Company; 509-517 West 

38th Street

New York X

Former French Hospital; 326-330 West 30th Street New York X

Former Gledhill Wall Paper Company; 541-545 West 34th 

Street

New York X

Former Hess Brothers Confectionary Factory; 502-504 West 

30th Street

New York X

Former Lee Brothers Storage Building; 571 Riverside Drive New York X

Former New York Public Library West 40th Street Branch; 457 

West 40th Street

New York X

Former Pinehill Crystal Water Company; 500-504 West 36th 

Street

New York X

Former Sheffield Farms Dairy; 632 West 125th Street New York X

Fur Craft Building; 242-246 West 30th Street New York X

George Washington Bridge New York X

Glad Tidings Tabernacle; 325-329 West 33rd Street New York X

High Line; Tenth Avenue New York X

High School of Printing (now Graphic Communication Arts New York X

Page G-98 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation Tier 1 Draft EIS

Exhibit G-13—S/NR-Eligible Individual Resources within the APEs

Name/Location County 90/110 

Study Area

125 

Study Area

H.S.); 439 West 49th Street

Hill Building; 469-475 Tenth Avenue New York X

Houbigant Company Warehouse; 539 West 45th Street New York X

Interborough Rapid Transit Company Power House/Con Ed; 

857 Eleventh Avenue

New York X

Kleeberg Residence; 3 Riverside Drive New York X

Master Printers Building; 406-416 Tenth Avenue New York X

Model Tenements, Ernest Flagg; 500-506 West 42nd Street New York X

New York Improvement & Tunnel Extension of the 

Pennsylvania Railroad; beneath Hudson River

New York X

P.S. 51; 520 West 45th Street New York X

P.S. 111; 440 West 53rd Street New York X

River Diner; 452 Eleventh Avenue New York X

Riverside Church; 490-498 Riverside Drive New York X

Riverside Drive Viaduct New York X

Riverside Park and Riverside Drive-North End New York X

St. Michael's Roman Catholic Church; 414-424 West 34th 

Street

New York X

St. Raphael Roman Catholic Church and Rectory; 502-504 

West 41st Street

New York X

US Post Office; 341 Ninth Avenue New York X

West 59th Street Recreation Center/West 60th Street Public 

Bath; 533 West 59th Street

New York X

West Market Diner; 659 West 131st Street New York X

William F. Sloan Memorial YMCA; 360 West 34th Street New York X

24 Alexander Street Westchester X

104 Buena Vista Avenue Westchester X

108 Buena Vista Avenue Westchester X

116 Buena Vista Avenue Westchester X

152-154 Buena Vista Avenue Westchester X

155-157 Buena Vista Avenue Westchester X

168-170 Buena Vista Avenue Westchester X

192 Buena Vista Avenue Westchester X

Municipal Building & Library; 7 Maple Avenue Westchester X

North Yonkers Pumping Station; 11 Alexander Street Westchester X

Purusco Residence; 22 Cottage Street Westchester X

Riverside Hose Company; Franklin Street Westchester X

Symond’s School/Snowden Court Westchester X

Tarrytown Railroad Station; Depot Quare Westchester X

Yonkers Canoe Club; Alexander Street Westchester X

Yonkers Railroad Station-Hudson Line; Buena Vista Avenue Westchester X

Cornell Boathouse Dutchess X

Johnson Plumbing Complex; 35 Main Street Dutchess X

Mid-Hudson Bridge; US 44 Dutchess X

Hudson and Boston Railroad Shop; Water Street Columbia X

Rip Van Winkle Bridge; US 23 Columbia X

472 Broadway Rensselaer X

487-483 Broadway Rensselaer X

908 Broadway Rensselaer X

920 Broadway Rensselaer X

926 Broadway Rensselaer X

927 Broadway Rensselaer X

941 Broadway Rensselaer X

943 Broadway Rensselaer X

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page G-99

New York State Department of Transportation 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation 

Exhibit G-13—S/NR-Eligible Individual Resources within the APEs

Name/Location County 90/110 

Study Area

125 

Study Area

1019 Broadway Rensselaer X

404 East Street Rensselaer X

550 East Street Rensselaer X

134 South Main Street Rensselaer X

A. Harder House/ National Bank; 11 South Main Street Rensselaer X

Hans Van Buren House; 99 South Main Street Rensselaer X

Harder/Culver Residence; 58 North Main Street Rensselaer X

Hogeboom/Price Residence; 42 North Main Street Rensselaer X

Isaac V. Schermerhorn House (Cooper Residence); 40 North 

Main Street

Rensselaer X

Marra Residence; 47 South Main Street Rensselaer X

Rensselaer City Library (former Rensselaer County Bank); 810 

Broadway

Rensselaer X

Village Hall & Library; 85 South Main Street Rensselaer X

924 New Scotland Road Albany X

U.S. Route 20 between Knight and Mudge Roads Schenectady X

1 Cayadutta Street Montgomery X

29 East Main Street Montgomery X

31 East Main Street Montgomery X

6-8 Voorhees Street Montgomery X

4 West Main Street Montgomery X

399 West Main Street Montgomery X

401 West Main Street Montgomery X

A. Doxtader House; 46 West Main Street Montgomery X

Barbara’s Restaurant; 12 West Main Street Montgomery X

Brunswick Hotel; 30 West Main Street Montgomery X

Catholic Church (American Legion Hall); 37 East Main Street Montgomery X

Delaurandis Block; 40 West Main Street Montgomery X

Fonda House; 56 West Main Street Montgomery X

Fonda Methodist Church; 42 West Main Street Montgomery X

Guy Park Manor; 366 West Main Street Montgomery X

Jansen Building; 14-16 West Main Street Montgomery X

Johnson House; 6 West Main Street Montgomery X

Judy Larman Dance Studio; 25 East Main Street Montgomery X

Mancini Barber Shop; 32 West Main Street Montgomery X

Mazes Hotel; 18 West Main Street Montgomery X

Mitchell Commercial; 10 West Main Street Montgomery X

Mogawk River Bank; 34 West Main Street Montgomery X

Mohawk Valley Democrat; 2 East Main Street Montgomery X

Nelson & Reese House, w/cemetery & barn foundations; 7573 

State Route 5

Montgomery X

Peeler Apartments; 8 West Main Street Montgomery X

Princeton Industries; 4 East Main Street Montgomery X

Stearns Residence; 19 East Main Street Montgomery X

Stearns Residence; 23 East Main Street Montgomery X

Voorhees Residence; 9 East Main Street Montgomery X

Voorhees Residence; 11 East Main Street Montgomery X

Vunk Apartments; 3 East Main Street Montgomery X

World War I Memorial; West Main Street Montgomery X

Wyman’s Drug Store; 26 West Main Street (Auto Parts) Montgomery X

Wyman’s Drug Store; 22 West Main Street (Jeannette’s) Montgomery X

Zion Episcopal Church; 27 East Main Street Montgomery X

591 East John Street Herkimer X

401 South Ann Street Herkimer X

Page G-100 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation Tier 1 Draft EIS

Exhibit G-13—S/NR-Eligible Individual Resources within the APEs

Name/Location County 90/110 

Study Area

125 

Study Area

403 South Ann Street Herkimer X

407 South Ann Street Herkimer X

48-54 West Main Street Herkimer X

338 West Main Street Herkimer X

56 West Mill Street Herkimer X

Fleet Bank; West Main Street Herkimer X

Little Planing Mill; 55 West Mill Street Herkimer X

Ligneous Paper Mill; 25 West Mill Street Herkimer X

McKinnon Warehouse; 24 West Mill Street Herkimer X

Snyder Apartments; West Main Street Herkimer X

Foster Bros Manufacturing Company; 807-811 Broad Street Oneida X

1255-1257 University Avenue Monroe X

1320 University Avenue Monroe X

Building C2 (H.F. Snyder and Son); Main Street Monroe X

Building Z (former Richmond Residence); 70 Main Street Monroe X

Foster Armstrong Piano Warehouses; Commercial Street Monroe X

Huther Company; 1290 University Avenue Monroe X

Jenkins Motor Car Company; 1239 University Avenue Monroe X

J. Hungerford Smith Company; 410 North Goodman Street Monroe X

Otis Lumber Company; 936-960 East Main Street Monroe X

Rochester Public Market; Railroad Street Monroe X

Schwalb Coal & Oil Company; 92 Portland Avenue Monroe X

Taylor Instrument Company; 95-111 Ames Street Monroe X

1032 Niagara Street Erie X

1073 Niagara Street Erie X

City Wide Trucking Company; 253 Exchange Street Erie X

Erie Freight Station; 391 Exchange Street Erie X

1043 Fairfield Avenue Niagara X

947 Ontario Avenue Niagara X

Commercial Warehouse 1910; 2212 11th Street Niagara X

Note: Resources that fall within the direct APE are also within the boundaries of the indirect APE.

Resources are listed by county. Counties are listed from south to north, then east to west.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page G-101

New York State Department of Transportation 
^_

New York

Connecticut

New York

New Jersey

Hudson River

New Y

Connec

Wheeler Hill

Historic District

Cold Spring Historic District

Union Street

Historic District

Garrison Landing Historic District

Riverside-West 105th Street Historic District

Riverside Drive-West 80th-81st Streets

Historic District

Stone Street

Main Street Historic District Historic District

Mill Street-North

Clover Street

Historic District

Scarborough Historic District

Upper Broadway Historic District

Riverside-West End Historic District

Broadway-Riverside Drive

Historic District

Riverside Drive -

West 135th-136th Streets

Historic District

West End Collegiate

Historic District

Lord & Burnham

Factory Complex

Historic District

Anaconda Wire & Cable Company

Historic District

Sunnyside

National

Historic

Landmark

§ ̈¦87 § ̈¦84

§ ̈¦287

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦78

§ ̈¦95

B e r g e n B e r g e n

U n i o n U n i o n

E s s e x E s s e x

P a s s a i c P a s s a i c

H u d s o n H u d s o n

M o r r i s M o r r i s

O r a n g e O r a n g e

U l s t e r U l s t e r

R o c k l a n d R o c k l a n d

P u t n a m P u t n a m

D u t c h e s s D u t c h e s s

W e s t c h e s t e r W e s t c h e s t e r

Q u e e n s Q u e e n s

B r o n x B r o n x

K i n g s K i n g s

Ramapo

Tuxedo

Cortlandt

Fishkill

Gardiner

Philipstown

Yorktown

Montgomery East Fishkill

Woodbury

Lloyd

Kent

Cornwall

New Windsor

Monroe

Stony Point

Haverstraw

Shawangunk

New York

Newburgh

Clarkstown

Plattekill

La Grange

Highlands

Putnam Valley

Greenburgh

Wappinger

Yonkers

Blooming Grove

Poughkeepsie

Marlborough

Mount Pleasant

Ossining

New Castle

Somers

Crawford

New Paltz

Beacon

Peekskill

Scarsdale

Rochester

Goshen

Eastchester

Mount Vernon

Pelham

Wallkill

Copyright:© 2013 Esri

^_

New York

Connecticut

Putnam

Acres

Hudson River

National Historic Landmark District

Clermont Estates Historic District

Schodack Landing

Historic District

Hudson Historic District

Clinton Avenue

Historic District

Union Street

Historic District

§ ̈¦87

§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦787

§ ̈¦890

A l b a n y A l b a n y

D u t c h e s s D u t c h e s s

C o l u m b i a C o l u m b i a

U l s t e r U l s t e r

G r e e n e G r e e n e

R e n s s e l a e r R e n s s e l a e r

Cairo

Catskill

Ghent

Milan

Schodack

Saugerties

Colonie

Westerlo

Stanford

Esopus

Clinton

Gallatin

Guilderland

Coeymans

Washington

Ulster

Claverack

Bethlehem

Chatham

New Scotland

Red Hook

Athens

Berne

Taghkanic

Hyde Park

Greenville

Rhinebeck

Ancram

Coxsackie

Livingston

Albany

Nassau

New Baltimore

Hunter

Pine Plains

Dover

Brunswick

Knox

Union Vale La Grange Lloyd

Kinderhook

Copake

Stuyvesant

Amenia

New Paltz Pleasant Valley

Clermont

Greenport

Troy

East Greenbush

Stockport

Northeast

North Greenbush

Germantown

Woodstock

Kingston

Poughkeepsie

Durham

Princetown

Jewett

Rensselaer

Hudson

Cohoes

Watervliet

Marbletown

Copyright:© 2013 Esri

PENNSYLVANIA

ONTARIO

(CANADA)

NEW YORK

6 5 4 3

1

2

KEY MAP

0 2.5 5 10

Miles

MAP 1 MAP 2

I Tier 1 EIS

High Speed Rail

Empire Corridor Program

Historic Resources Map

Alt. 125 as shown is a potential corridor used to analyze the potential operating characteristics, environmental impacts and cost for this speed (125 mph) threshold.

^_ National Historic Landmark

Architectural Resources

S/NR Listed District

S/NR Elligble District

S/NR Listed or Eligible

Individual Resource

Archaeological Resources

#* Archaeological Resource

!( Burial / Cemetery

")

Native American

Habitation/Village/Hamlet

Existing Empire Corridor

Alternative 125 Corridor

Sources: NPS, SHPO, and NYSM, 2012

*

*

Exhibit G-14
^_

^_

Hudson River

Fort Klock

National Historic Landmark

General Electric

Research Laboratory

National Historic Landmark

Little Falls Historic District

New York Canal System Historic District

Amsterdam East Main Street Historic District

Fonda Fairgrounds & Speedway

Historic District

Clinton Avenue Historic District

Nelliston

Historic District

Stockade Historic District Union Street

Historic District

Broadway--Livingston Avenue Historic District

§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦88

§ ̈¦87

§ ̈¦787

§ ̈¦890

F u l t o n F u l t o n

O t s e g o O t s e g o

S a r a t o g a S a r a t o g a

H e r k i m e r H e r k i m e r

A l b a n y A l b a n y

M o n t g o m e r y M o n t g o m e r y

S c h o h a r i e S c h o h a r i e

S c h e n e c t a d y S c h e n e c t a d y

Root

Glen

Otsego

Knox

Colonie

Florida

Minden

Mayfield

Galway

Stark

Duanesburg

Greenfield

Glenville

Malta

Milton

Berne

Sharon

Warren

Caroga

Fairfield

Oppenheim

Seward

Hartwick

Carlisle

Wright

Wilton

Springfield

Stratford

Providence

Charleston

Bleecker

Danube

Westford

Salisbury

Columbia

Herkimer

Exeter

Richfield

Cobleskill

Roseboom

Decatur

Fulton Bethlehem

Newport

Johnstown

Middlefield

Palatine

Guilderland

Ephratah

Clifton Park

Mohawk

Charlton

Broadalbin

Ballston

Canajoharie

Rotterdam

Halfmoon

Manheim

Albany

Cherry Valley

Schuyler

Schoharie

Middleburgh New Scotland

Amsterdam

German Flatts

Little Falls

Princetown

Richmondville

Worcester

Esperance

Saratoga Springs

Niskayuna

St Johnsville

Summit

Edinburg

Northampton

Schenectady

Milford Maryland

Winfield

Oneida

Lake

Lower Genesee Street

Historic District

South Peterboro Street

Commercial Historic District

§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦81

§ ̈¦690

§ ̈¦481

O n e i d a O n e i d a

O n o n d a g a O n o n d a g a

M a d i s o n M a d i s o n

O s w e g o O s w e g o

C a y u g a C a y u g a

H e r k i m e r H e r k i m e r

O t s e g o O t s e g o

C o r t l a n d C o r t l a n d

Vienna

Rome

Clay

Verona

Sullivan

Niles

Pompey

Lee

Eaton

Cicero

Brookfield

Lysander

Fabius

Manlius

Nelson

Floyd

Onondaga Paris

Trenton

Marcy

Tully

Vernon

Madison

Otisco

Elbridge

Fenner

La Fayette

Lebanon Hamilton

Kirkland

Camillus

Marshall

Van Buren

Western

Russia

Lincoln

Litchfield

Ira

Annsville

Camden

Sangerfield

Salina

Steuben

Lenox

Cazenovia

De Witt

Spafford

Skaneateles

Frankfort

Deerfield

Marcellus

Augusta

Schuyler Utica

Oneida

Westmoreland

Winfield

Syracuse

Georgetown

Stockbridge

DeRuyter

Smithfield

Whitestown

Bridgewater

New Hartford

Cato

Owasco

Sennett

Geddes

Remsen

Columbia

Sherrill

Granby

Scott

Constantia

Hastings

Cuyler

Plainfield

SchroeppelWest Monroe

Hannibal

Edmeston

Richfield

PENNSYLVANIA

ONTARIO

(CANADA)

NEW YORK

6 5 4 3

1

2

KEY MAP

MAP 4

MAP 3

I 0 5 10 2.5

Miles

Tier 1 EIS

High Speed Rail

Empire Corridor Program

Historic Resources Map

Alt. 125 as shown is a potential corridor used to analyze the potential operating characteristics, environmental impacts and cost for this speed (125 mph) threshold.

^_ National Historic Landmark

Architectural Resources

S/NR Listed District

S/NR Elligble District

S/NR Listed or Eligible

Individual Resource

Archaeological Resources

#* Archaeological Resource

!( Burial / Cemetery

")

Native American

Habitation/Village/Hamlet

Existing Empire Corridor

Alternative 125 Corridor

Sources: NPS, SHPO, and NYSM, 2012

*

*

Exhibit G-14
Lake

Ontario

Public Market Historic District

Village of Clyde Historic District

New York Canal System Historic District

East Avenue Historic District

§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦390

§ ̈¦490 § ̈¦590 W a y n e W a y n e

M o n r o e M o n r o e

O n t a r i o O n t a r i o

C a y u g a C a y u g a

S e n e c a S e n e c a

L i v i n g s t o n L i v i n g s t o n

O s w e g o O s w e g o

Ira

Sodus

Galen

Phelps

Chili

Fayette

Cato

Tyre

Greece

Huron

Parma

Rose

Lima

Butler

Victor

Sterling

Rush

Ogden

Wolcott

Hannibal

Riga

Mendon

Victory

York

Seneca

Ontario

Macedon

Marion

Webster

Palmyra

Perinton

Junius

Hopewell

Aurelius

Conquest

Sennett Caledonia

Livonia Gorham

Fleming

Geneseo Bristol

Hamlin

Wheatland

Throop

Oswego

Niles

Avon

Arcadia

Lyons Penfield

Canandaigua

Henrietta

Savannah

Walworth Rochester

Farmington

Brutus

Manchester

Williamson

Owasco

Mentz

Pittsford

Gates

Waterloo

Springport

Seneca Falls

East Bloomfield

Richmond

Brighton

Montezuma

West Bloomfield

Geneva

Scipio

Auburn

Lysander

Irondequoit

Ontario

(Canada)

New York

(United States)

Lake

Erie

Lake

Ontario

Lake

Ontario

Lake Street Historic District

Seneca Industrial Center

Historic District

Wende Correctional Facility Historic District

Joseph Ellicott

Downtown

Historic District

Village of Bergen § ̈¦90 Historic District

§ ̈¦190

§ ̈¦290

E r i e E r i e

N i a g a r a N i a g a r a

G e n e s e e G e n e s e e

O r l e a n s O r l e a n s

W y o m i n g W y o m i n g

M o n r o e M o n r o e

L i v i n g s t o n L i v i n g s t o n

E r i e E r i e

York

Barre Royalton

Elba

Riga

Batavia

Wilson

Elma

Shelby

Amherst

Hartland

Attica

Clarence

Le Roy

Alabama

Hamlin

Newstead

Porter

Newfane

Byron

Ridgeway

Gaines

Bennington

Cambria

Pavilion

Murray

Sweden

Pembroke

Marilla

Stafford

Lancaster

Clarkson

Alexander

Carlton

Perry

Yates Kendall

Ogden

Caledonia

Wheatfield Pendleton

Covington

Aurora Wales Sheldon Leicester

Somerset

Warsaw

Darien Buffalo

Lockport

Alden

Lewiston

Bethany

Albion

Bergen

Clarendon

Middlebury

Oakfield

Grand Island

HamburgOrchard Park

Tonawanda

West Seneca

Niagara Falls

Niagara

Orangeville

North Tonawanda

Lackawanna

PENNSYLVANIA

ONTARIO

(CANADA)

NEW YORK

6 5 4 3

1

2

KEY MAP

I 0 5 10 2.5

Miles

Tier 1 EIS

High Speed Rail

Empire Corridor Program

MAP 6

MAP 5

Historic Resources Map

Alt. 125 as shown is a potential corridor used to analyze the potential operating characteristics, environmental impacts and cost for this speed (125 mph) threshold.

^_ National Historic Landmark

Architectural Resources

S/NR Listed District

S/NR Elligble District

S/NR Listed or Eligible

Individual Resource

Archaeological Resources

#* Archaeological Resource

!( Burial / Cemetery

")

Native American

Habitation/Village/Hamlet

Existing Empire Corridor

Alternative 125 Corridor

Sources: NPS, SHPO, and NYSM, 2012

*

*

Exhibit G-14
Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation Tier 1 Draft EIS

Exhibit G-15—Counties, Cities/Towns and Villages within the APEs

County City/Town Village

New York New York City* (Manhattan)

Bronx** New York City* (Borough of Bronx) 

Westchester

City of Peekskill

City of Yonkers*

Town of Cortlandt Buchanan

Croton-On-Hudson

Town of Greenburgh*

Dobbs Ferry

Hastings-On-Hudson

Irvington

Tarrytown

Town of Mount Pleasant Sleepy Hollow

Town of Ossining Briarcliff Manor

Ossining*

Putnam Town of Phillipstown Cold Spring*

Dutchess

City of Beacon

City of Poughkeepsie

Town of Fishkill

Town of Hyde Park

Town of Poughkeepsie*

Town of Red Hook Tivoli

Town of Rhinebeck

Town of Wappinger

Columbia

City of Hudson

Town of Clermont

Town of Germantown

Town of Greenport

Town of Livingston

Town of Stockport

Town of Stuyvesant

Greene Town of Athens Athens

Town of New Baltimore

Rensselaer

City of Rensselaer

Town of East Greenbush

Town of Schodack Castleton-On-Hudson

Albany*

City of Albany

Town of Bethlehem

Town of Colonie Colonie

Town of Guilderland

Schenectady

City of Schenectady*

Town of Duanesburg†

Town of Glenville Scotia

Town of Princetown†

Town of Rotterdam

Schoharie Town of Carlisle†

Town of Esperance† Esperance†

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page G-105

New York State Department of Transportation 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation 

Exhibit G-15—Counties, Cities/Towns and Villages within the APEs

County City/Town Village

Montgomery

Town of Amsterdam Fort Johnson

Town of Canajoharie Canajoharie

Town of Charleston†

Town of Florida

Town of Glen

Town of Minden Fort Plain

Town of Mohawk Fonda

Town of Palatine Nelliston

Palatine Bridge

Town of Root

Town of St. Johnsville St. Johnsville

Herkimer

Town of Danube

Town of Frankfort Frankfort

Town of German Flatts Ilion

Mohawk

Town of Herkimer Herkimer

Town of Little Falls Little Falls

Town of Manheim

Town of Schuyler

Town of Stark†

Oneida

City of Rome

City of Utica*

Town of Kirkland† Clinton†

Town of Marcy

Town of New Hartford†

Town of Sherrill†

Town of Vernon† Oneida Castle†

Town of Verona

Town of Westmoreland

Town of Whitestown

Oriskany

Whitesboro

Yorkville

Madison

City of Oneida

Town of Lenox Canastota

Wampsville

Town of Sullivan

Onondaga

City of Syracuse*

Town of Camillus

Town of De Witt East Syracuse

Town of Elbridge Jordan

Town of Geddes Solvay

Town of Manlius Minoa

Town of Salina

Town of Van Buren

Cayuga

Town of Brutus Weedsport

Town of Cato†

Town of Conquest†

Town of Mentz

Town of Montezuma

Wayne

Town of Macedon Macedon

Town of Palmyra Palmyra*

Town of Arcadia Newark

Town of Lyons Lyons

Town of Galen Clyde

Town of Savannah

Page G-106 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation Tier 1 Draft EIS

Exhibit G-15—Counties, Cities/Towns and Villages within the APEs

County City/Town Village

Monroe

Town of Riga Churchville

Town of Chili

Town of Gates

City of Rochester*

Town of Brighton

Town of Penfield

Town of Pittsford East Rochester

Town of Perinton Fairport*

Genesee

Town of Pembroke Corfu

Town of Darien

Town of Batavia Batavia

Town of Stafford

Town of Byron

Town of bergen Bergen

Erie

Town of Tonawanda Kenmore

City of Buffalo*

Town of Cheektowaga Sloan

Depew

Town of Lancaster Lancaster*

Town of Alden

Niagara

Town of Niagara

City of Niagara Falls*

Town of Wheatfield

City of North Tonawanda*

Notes: * Indicates Certified Local Government (CLG)

 ** Bronx County is located in the New York MCD

 Within the Direct/Indirect APEs for Alternative 125 only

12. Visual

12.1 Empire Corridor South

Views from the Railroad

In Manhattan (MPs 0 to 11.5), the railroad runs primarily in a tunnel from Pennsylvania Station to 

123rd Street. However, there are some sections that are daylighted: 36th Street to 39th Street, 

43rd Street to 46th Street, 48th Street to 49th Street and 60th Street to 61st Street. Where the 

railroad runs aboveground, the viewshed in Manhattan is entirely urban and the landform is flat. 

After the railroad daylights north of 123rd Street, the railroad is bracketed by the Henry Hudson 

Parkway (Route 9A) on the west and Riverside Drive on the east. The railroad passes underneath 

elevated Riverside Drive from 153rd Street to 155th Street, and underneath the Henry Hudson 

Parkway just past MP 7. North of where the railroad crosses under the parkway, the railroad 

extends through the greenway along the Hudson River and continues under the George Washington 

Bridge (I-95) at MP 8, closely following the river’s edge north of I-95. The tracks again pass 

underneath the elevated Henry Hudson Parkway interchange ramps between MP 9 and MP 10.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page G-107

New York State Department of Transportation 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation 

The views at the crossing of the Spuyten-Duyvil swing span bridge into Bronx County are primarily 

of the Harlem River and Hudson River to the west. In Bronx County (MPs 11.5 to 14), the railroad 

closely follows the edge of the Hudson River. Views to the west are of the Hudson River, and a 

forested buffer, including Riverdale Park on the south (MPs 11.5 and 13), dominates the views to 

the east. The northernmost section in the county includes the Metro-North Riverdale Station (MP 

13) and the campus of the College of Mount Saint Vincent to the east of the railroad is buffered by 

forested vegetation. 

In Westchester County (MPs 14 to 45), the railroad continues to closely follow the east river bank, 

but transitions from a primarily urban landscape on the south at the Yonkers Station MP 15, to 

more rural forested landscapes with coves and high bluffs to the north. The viewshed consists of 

the Hudson River to the west, and includes urban development along the more urban waterfronts, 

and views to the east are generally buffered by vegetation along the tracks. The viewshed in the 

northern part of the county is a mix of urban and forest land along the corridor. The landscape 

becomes more rural north of Yonkers, and the railroad extends under the Tappan Zee Bridge (MP 

25) and north through more urban areas of Tarrytown, Ossining, Croton-on-Hudson, and Peekskill.

With but a few exceptions, the railroad closely follows the east bank of the Hudson River through 

most of Westchester County, particularly to the south. South of Peekskill there are several long, 

fairly sharp curves that bring the railroad well inland. The rail corridor is within the Hudson 

Highlands Scenic Area of Statewide Significance (SASS) between MP 40.5 to the Westchester County 

line. This segment is especially scenic, passing through the Hudson Highlands, requiring several 

short tunnels where the Hudson River narrows and the landscape on both sides rises precipitously 

from zero to 1,000 feet in several locations. At the northern end of the county, the railroad passes 

under the Bear Mountain Bridge (MP 45) and through four tunnels along this section of the 

railroad, which temporarily obstruct views to and from the train: 

• Osca Tunnel (MP 36.80), approximately 250 feet long

• Little Tunnel (MP 43.62), approximately 75 feet long

• Middle Tunnel (MP 44.40), approximately 300 feet long

• Route 6 Tunnel (MP 45.07), approximately175 feet long

There are also a number of bays that intrude inland where the railroad is built on causeways that 

include a small bridge to drain Peekskill Bay and associated streams and small rivers. In areas 

where the railroad heads inland the views from the railroad are generally of forest or marsh areas 

from both sides of the train.

Upon crossing into Putnam County (MPs 45 to 54.5) the railroad continues to closely follow the 

east bank of the river, and the primary viewshed is dominated by the river and high forested bluffs 

and several coves and marshlands along this section. Near MP 50 to 52, there are scenic views of 

the West Point Military Academy high on the banks of the west river bank. The entire county is 

located within the Hudson Highlands SASS, and at the northern end of the county, the railroad 

passes through Hudson Highlands State Park. The railroad passes through two tunnels, Garrison 

Tunnel (MP 50.06), approximately 450 feet long, and Breakneck Tunnel (MP 54.52), approximately 

550 feet long, before continuing into Dutchess County.

In Dutchess County (MPs 54.5 to 100.5), the railroad continues to closely border the east river 

bank. The railroad passes north through the Hudson Highlands State Park, before entering urban 

areas in Beacon and passing under the Newburgh-Beacon Bridge (I-84) (MP 60). The railroad 

extends through Scenic Areas of Scenic Significance (SASSs) throughout the length of the county, 

Page G-108 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation Tier 1 Draft EIS

with the exception of the section of railroad between the state park (the Hudson Highlands District 

SASS at MPs 54.5 to 58) and just south of Poughkeepsie. The railroad extends along the river bank, 

continuing on causeway across several coves, before passing through Poughkeepsie, and extending 

under the Mid-Hudson Bridge (U.S. Route 44 and State Route 55) and the Walkway over the Hudson 

State Park Bridge, just south of the Poughkeepsie Station. North of Poughkeepsie, the railroad 

extends through the Estates District SASS (MPs 70 to 100.5), adjoins Esopus/Lloyd SASS (MPs 70 to 

87), and extends in the vicinity of a number of historic estates and parks between Hyde Park and 

Staatsburg. The railroad does move inland away from the Hudson River at Staatsburg. 

To maintain a relatively straight alignment, the railroad constructed a large number of causeways 

where bays and marsh areas intrude inward from a straight path. One of two causeways in 

Dutchess County that are notable for their length includes the 0.8 mile-long Vanderburgh Cove. To 

the north, the railroad closely follows the river’s edge, passing through the Rhinecliff-Kingston 

Station before passing through the approximately 230-foot-long Rhinecliff Tunnel (MP 91.33) and 

under the Kingston-Rhinecliff Bridge (MP 93). To the north, the railroad passes over the other 

notable causeway, the 1.5-mile-long Tivoli Bay at Annadale, and passes through the Tivoli Bays 

State Wildlife Management Area between MPs 95.5 and 98.5. The Tivoli Bays is also included in the 

Mid-Hudson Historic Shorelands Scenic District designated under Article 49 of the Environmental 

Conservation Law. 

In Columbia County (MPs 100.5 to 129.5), the railroad continues to closely follow the eastern river 

bank, particularly on the southern half of the county. Views from the railroad are dominated by 

forested vegetation, open space, and the Hudson River and its islands and marshes on the southern 

half of the county. The railroad extends through either designated scenic areas or parks through 

the majority of the county. The corridor runs through Estates SASS District from the Dutchess

County line (MP 100) to MP 103.5. The other SASS districts that the corridor runs through in 

Columbia County are the Catskill Olana District (MPs 107 to 112) and the Columbia/Greene North 

District (MPs 115 to 129.5), which extends into Rensselaer County. The railroad extends past 

several islands where it extends along the shoreline. The railroad adjoins Roger’s Island where it 

passes under the Rip Van Winkle Bridge at MP 111.5. To the north, the railroad passes another 

island (Middle Ground Flats), north of the Hudson Station, where the railroad extends across a long, 

1.6-mile-long causeway over North Bay. To the north, the railroad extends past the Hudson River 

Islands where it extends on causeway over several coves. To the north, the railroad moves further 

inland in sections and away from the Hudson River shoreline, roughly parallel to New York State 

Bicycle Route 9/Route 9J. The railroad extends along the edge of Muitzes Kill, a branch of the river 

that adjoins Houghtaling Island at the north end of the county, where it extends into Rensselaer 

County. 

The viewshed in the Rensselaer County (MPs 129.5 to 143) section varies from forested and 

agricultural to urban, with the urban areas clustered in and around the city of Rensselaer at the 

north end of the county. The Columbia-Greene SASS extends on the southernmost part of the 

county, from the county line (MP 129.5) to MP 131.5. The southern third of Rensselaer County 

continues alongside the island in the Hudson River (Schodack Island/Castleton Island State Park), 

bracketed by Muitzes Kill on the west and New York State Bicycle Route 9/Route 9J on the east. 

The railroad extends under the Castleton Bridge (Berkshire Connector of the New York State 

Thruway) and continues along the bank of the Hudson River past the north end of Schodack Island, 

passing through the village of Castleton-on-Hudson. North of the village, the railroad extends 

inland, passing between Moordener Kill on the west and Route 9J on the east, and continuing north 

through forested and agricultural lands and alongside the east side of the Papscanee Island Nature 

Preserve (MPs 137.5 to 139). Where the railroad rejoins Route 9J, just outside the city of 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page G-109

New York State Department of Transportation 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation 

Rensselaer, the adjoining uses along the river and extending into the city include industrialized uses 

and fuel tank farms. Approaching the Albany-Rensselaer Station, there are views of the Albany 

skyline across the river, and adjoining urbanized areas also include residential neighborhoods and 

office buildings. After leaving the Albany-Rensselaer Amtrak station (MP 142) the railroad 

continues north through urban/industrial areas. The railroad crosses the Hudson River at the 

Livingston Avenue Bridge, a swing-span bridge, (west of MP 143) where the river is fronted by 

parks and greenways.

12.2 Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch (90/110 Study Area/125 

Study Area)

Views from the Railroad: 90/110 Study Area

After crossing the Livingston Avenue Bridge into Albany County (MPs 143 to155), the viewshed 

includes parks/greenways along the river and industrialized waterfront development in the city of 

Albany. The eastern half of the county includes views of industrial urban development, and views 

from the railroad are screened by forest vegetation and include views of adjoining or overpassing 

highways and interchange ramps where the railroad roughly parallels I-90 (New York State 

Thruway) and crosses under the Adirondack Northway (I-87), just past the city limits. The views 

along the western half of the county are dominated by screening by forest vegetation within a 

patchwork of parklands (including the Albany Pine Bush State Unique Area) and undeveloped 

lands. 

In Schenectady County (MPs 155 to 170), even though the tracks pass through urbanized areas 

that include residential neighborhoods on the southern half of the county, the tracks are adjoined 

by trees in many locations that screen views of adjacent areas. In the city of Schenectady, the views 

from the train include views of institutional uses and the downtown business district. The railroad 

extends along a 0.2-mile section of Erie Boulevard, the western end of the Mohawk Towpath Scenic 

Byway, a New York State scenic byway. The views north of the downtown area include the Mohawk 

River/Erie Canal at the river crossing, and the railroad extends through increasingly more rural 

forested areas with pockets of farmlands to the north where views are buffered in many locations 

by trees. North of the river crossing, the middle third of the county extends through more 

developed and residential areas in and north of the village of Scotia, although trees shield views of 

adjoining properties in many locations. The northern third of the county views includes 

intermittent views of Route 5 and the Mohawk River/Erie Canal where the railroad parallels these 

features. 

The Revolutionary Trail Scenic Byway (Route 5/29) extends alongside the length of the Empire 

Corridor and the Mohawk River/Erie Canal from Route 5 in Schenectady County to Herkimer, then 

follows Route 5S and the Erie Canal to Utica and continues northwest along Route 49 and the Erie 

Canal to Rome in Oneida County. The eastern half of the Empire Corridor West is quite scenic as the 

railroad closely follows the Mohawk River/Erie Canal to Herkimer where West Canada Creek flows 

into the Mohawk River to drain part of the Adirondack Highlands. The east-west passage of the 

Mohawk River follows a natural divide between the southern Adirondack uplands to the north and 

the northern fringes of the Catskills to the south. Both of these uplands bordering the Mohawk 

River can be described as a peneplain; an eroded plateau with a rolling surface. The Mohawk River 

is considerably less than straight and in places plateaus rise steeply over 800 feet. West of 

Herkimer, the railroad follows the New York State Barge Canal and follows the natural lower path 

Page G-110 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation Tier 1 Draft EIS

to the west exploited by the builders of the Erie Canal. The landscape becomes less vertical 

approaching Utica. 

In Montgomery County (MPs 170 to 210), the railroad closely parallels and extends between 

Route 5, on the north, and the Mohawk River/Erie Canal on the south, throughout much of the 

county. Views throughout the county are dominated by Route 5 and adjoining uses, which are 

predominantly rural agricultural, forested, and residential, with views of the river where it closely 

adjoins and is not screened by forest vegetation. In the eastern sections of the county, rock ledges 

adjoin Route 5, and the slopes adjoining the railroad steepen, and generally flatten throughout the 

rest of the county. Where the railroad closely adjoins the riverbanks, views include uses on the 

opposing river bank where the river narrows, and there are several islands in the river. In some 

locations, the railroad is set back from Route 5, and views of the highway are obscured by trees. 

Urban viewsheds are largely limited to the city of Amsterdam, with the Amsterdam Amtrak Station 

(MP 177.5); the village of Fonda; and the village of St. Johnsville. In the villages of Palatine Bridge 

and Nelliston, where the railroad follows the riverbank, it is set back from the village centers and 

screened by forest vegetation. 

The railroad continues to parallel Route 5 and the Mohawk River/Erie Canal throughout much of 

Herkimer County (MPs 210 to 235). The viewshed along the railroad consists of forest, 

agricultural, and rural residential uses outside the cities of Little Falls and Herkimer. In many 

locations, where the railroad does not closely adjoin Route 5 or the river, views of these features 

are obscured by trees. A majority of the landform along the rail corridor is flat with the exception 

of moderate to severe slopes near Little Falls and Herkimer. The railroad passes through the 

southern outskirts of both cities, and views from the tracks are screened from view to varying 

extents by trees and limited by steeper slopes. Scenic islands in the river/canal include the Moss 

Island National Natural Landmark in Little Falls (near MP 216), where intermittent views of the 

rock ledges may be visible through trees adjoining the tracks, and Plantation Island State Wildlife 

Management Area south of the city of Herkimer (MP 222). The New York State Thruway (I-90) 

crosses over the railroad in the southwest part of the city of Herkimer (MP 225). At MP 231.5, the 

railroad crosses the Erie Canal just south of Lock 19, which is visible at the canal crossing. 

In Oneida County (MPs 235 to 264), west of the county line, the railroad is shielded by trees and 

surrounded by forested areas where it extends past industrialized areas. The railroad closely 

adjoins a section of Route 5S to the west, passing into industrialized areas surrounding the Utica 

Boehlert Transportation Center (MP 237.5) at the northern edge of city. The railroad extends 

through flat open and industrial areas adjoining the station area, then extends west under the I-790 

interchange ramps. West of these ramps, the views from the railroad are screened by forested 

areas, which occupy the majority of area north of the tracks where there are large expanses of 

marshland, forestland, and farmland and scattered industrial uses. At MP 241.8, the tracks cross 

under the New York State Thruway (I-90). The south side of the tracks are bordered by residential 

neighborhoods, many of which are screened by trees, and industrial/commercial uses. Further 

west, the railroad extends through the Oriskany Flats State Wildlife Management Area at MPs 244.8 

to 246.6 and other undeveloped lands and continues through the southern, less developed half of 

the city of Rome, including the Rome Station (MP 251.3). The railroad is set back from the Erie 

Canal in Rome, and views of the canal are screened by trees. Further west, the railroad continues 

through farmlands, wetlands, forestlands, and the Rome State Wildlife Management Area (MPs 

253.6 to 255.8). 

In Madison County (MPs 264 to 278), the viewshed is predominantly forest land and agricultural 

land with urban development concentrated in the middle of the county in the village of Canastota. 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page G-111

New York State Department of Transportation 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation 

The corridor is almost entirely flat. West of the Oneida county line, the railroad extends through 

the northern, less developed areas of the city of Oneida, where views of adjoining areas are 

screened to a large extent by trees that either adjoin the right-of-way or are part of extensive areas 

of forest along the railroad. The Old Erie Canal State Park/Erie Canalway Trail extends north of or 

alongside the railroad between MPs 266.5 to 269, and the Old Erie Canal and adjoining areas of 

swamp adjoins the tracks in several locations, continuing north of, and further from, the railroad 

through Canastota. In Canastota, the views from the tracks are of more densely developed 

residential neighborhoods, businesses, and industrial uses. West of Canastota, the Old Erie Canal 

rejoins the north side of the railroad, north of Barlow Street, at MP 270.5, eventually crossing the 

railroad at MP 272. Agricultural lands are a more prominent feature of the surrounding landscape 

in the western part of the county, where the railroad continues through rural, partially forested 

landscape.

Crossing into Onondaga County (MPs 278 to 309), the viewshed continues to be primarily 

agricultural and forested, paralleling Saintsville Road and adjoining residences and businesses to 

the north, before crossing on the south side of Dewitt Yard (MPs 282.5 to 286) in and west of the 

village of Minoa. Views south of the tracks are of forested and residential areas through forested 

buffers alongside the railroad, transitioning to industrial uses approaching the I-481 Bridge in East 

Syracuse. West of this area, the railroad extends through increasingly urbanized and 

industrial/commercial areas in and around the city of Syracuse, with some views from the railroad 

screened by forest vegetation. In downtown Syracuse, the railroad is buffered by trees where it 

extends between Ley Creek on the west and the Alliance Bank Stadium and the Syracuse Regional 

Transportation Center (MP 291.5) on the east. Past the station, the railroad extends under the I-81 

bridge and interchange ramps, and between Onondaga Lake and park on the west, and the Carousel 

Place shopping mall on the east. The railroad extends over the Barge Canal outlet along the 

lakefront and is buffered by trees to the south where it extends past industrial uses on the east, 

under I-690, and continues through industrial urban development (including the State 

Fairgrounds) west of the city of Syracuse. West of the fairgrounds, the railroad is buffered by trees 

where it extends through increasingly rural forested and agricultural areas and scattered industrial 

and residential areas. Although sections of the railroad closely parallel the New York State 

Thruway (I-90) and the Erie Canalway Trail, views are largely obscured by forested vegetation.

Leaving Onondaga County, the railroad extends west following a broad, level valley generally 

drained by the west to east flowing Seneca River/Erie Canal. In Cayuga County (MPs 309 to 320), 

the primary viewshed consists of agricultural and forest lands with rural, low-density development, 

and no viewsheds in major urban centers. The landform is generally flat with some small areas of 

mild to moderate slopes along either side of the rail corridor, which limits views. The Canalway 

Trail – Erie Section is located along the corridor between MPs 311 and 312. The railroad extends 

under the New York State Thruway (I-90) at MP 315. Approaching the Wayne County line, the 

railroad crosses the Seneca River/Erie Canal at MP 319.30 and then the extensive marshes within 

the wide floodplain of the now narrow Seneca River, adjoining the south side of Howland Island 

within the Northern Montezuma State Wildlife Management Area. The crossing of the Seneca River, 

on the other (west) side of Howland Island, forms the Wayne County line at MP 320.2.

The predominant viewshed in Wayne County (MPs 320 to 357) is mostly agricultural with large 

areas of forestland and wetlands. On the eastern end of the county, the railroad adjoins the 

Northern Montezuma State Wildlife Management Area (MPs 320 to 321.5). Views from the railroad 

include Route 31, which roughly parallels sections of the railroad, after crossing it in the village of 

Savannah (MP 322.5), through the eastern half of the county. The railroad also extends across the 

Montezuma National Wildlife Refuge (MPs 323.3 to 325.6), where views of adjoining Route 31 and, 

Page G-112 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation Tier 1 Draft EIS

to some extent, surrounding swamp and marsh areas, are obscured by heavy forest and shrub 

vegetation. The landform along the railroad in the county is generally flat with some areas of 

moderate to steep slopes. Approaching Clyde at MP 328 and continuing west through the county 

(around these major drainages), the railroad encounters a region of prominent north-south 

oriented drumlins. These rounded, elongated ridges were formed during periods of glaciation that 

eroded the Allegheny Plateau – Finger Lakes Region to the south. Viewsheds include the Erie Canal, 

which extends in close proximity to the railroad in portions of the county, where it closely adjoins 

the railroad through Clyde, crosses the railroad in Lyons and again near Newark. Urban views in 

the villages of Savannah, Clyde, Lyons, and Newark are limited by screening by trees and the 

location of the railroad in the outskirts of these villages. However, views of urbanized areas along 

the track include the business and agricultural industrial district in and around Clyde, the rail yard 

and businesses and neighborhoods in Lyons, and industrial areas in Newark. Although the canal 

runs parallel to the railroad and alongside the Canalway Trail-Erie Canal Heritage Trail (between 

MPs 354.5 and 357) approaching the Monroe County line, the canal is offset by a forested buffer, 

which largely obscures views from the railroad. 

Entering Monroe County (MPs 357 to 388), the railroad closely parallels the bank of the Erie Canal, 

to the south, extending through largely forested, undeveloped areas. Forested buffers, including 

several park areas, adjoin the railroad through the eastern part of the county. The railroad extends 

further from the canal as it continues west through increasingly urbanized areas, extending close to 

the canal before the two diverge. The railroad passes under the I-590 Bridge and I-490 interchange 

ramps near the city limits. West of the interchange, entering the city of Rochester, the viewshed 

becomes increasingly urban and dominated by hardscape, with parking lots, businesses, and 

industries closely adjoining the railroad and limited or no screening by trees. The railroad adjoins 

the south side of the Rochester railyard (MP 369) and continues alongside commercial and 

industrial areas, and south of the Rochester public market. To the west, approaching the Rochester 

Station (MP 371), the railroad continues above the grade of underpassing roadways and includes a 

tree buffer that partially screens views of the adjoining commercial/industrial areas. To the west, 

the railroad extends over the Genesee River (MP 371.3) just upstream (south) of the High Falls, or 

Upper Falls, and downstream (north) of the Inner Loop bridge. The railroad continues through the 

downtown business district adjacent to the Inner Loop, passing by Frontier Field just east before 

passing over the I-490/Inner Loop Interchange bridges (MP 371.85), with views to the north 

screened to some extent by trees. The viewshed through the remainder of the city is screened to 

some extent by trees, but views consist of commercial and residential buildings, before crossing at 

the Erie Canal and the Canalway Trail-Erie Canal Heritage Trail (MP 374.5). To the west, the 

viewshed includes increasing areas of forested/undeveloped areas with lower density development 

outside of the city, continuing through industrialized areas and crossing under I-390 at MP 374.75 

and under I-490 at MP 377. The viewshed in the remainder of the county is rural and forested, with 

low density residential uses and farmlands closer to the county line. 

In Genesee County (MPs 388 to 418) the viewshed is primarily agricultural with smaller areas of 

forest and views of residential and scattered commercial/industrial uses. The eastern half has 

views largely of agricultural fields, although forested buffers screen views in many locations. Urban 

views in the county are limited as the railroad extends through the outskirts of the city of Batavia in 

the middle of the county, passing through several parks and recreational areas in and just outside 

the city limits. The railroad crosses over the New York State Thruway (I-90) at MP 399.3. The 

western half of the county provides viewsheds of forest and farmlands, with scattered residential 

and commercial buildings, and parallels Route 33 to the north, which is offset and largely screened 

by vegetation or buildings. 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page G-113

New York State Department of Transportation 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation 

Entering Erie County (MPs 418 to 439/QDN1 to QDN13), the viewshed from the railroad consists 

primarily of agricultural and forested lands. The viewshed becomes increasingly urban in the 

village areas approaching the Buffalo-Depew Station (MP 431.6) and the town of Cheektowaga, 

where views from the railroad include adjoining Ellicot Road/Route 130, to the south, and an 

overhead crossing of I-90 (Governor Thomas Dewey Thruway). Approaching and passing into the 

city of Buffalo, the views from the railroad include industrialized areas (including the Frontier 

railyard and the Buffalo Terminal) and higher density neighborhoods. In the downtown area, views 

include commercial buildings, to the north, and the elevated Niagara Thruway (I-190) structure, on 

the south. At the Buffalo Exchange Street Station, interchange ramps and elevated I-190 extend 

overhead, and the Buffalo skyline, including Coca Cola Field and parking facilities, are visible to the 

north. The railroad passes under the I-190/Route 5 Interchange through a 500-foot tunnel and a 

565-foot tunnel. Route 5 in this location is part of the Great Lakes Seaway Trail, a National Scenic 

Byway and 518-mile driving route, which extends along the Lake Erie and Niagara River 

waterfront. The railroad borders I-190 to the west, and views of the Black Rock Canal (segregated 

from Lake Erie by Bird Island Pier) are obstructed by landscaping and developments. To the north, 

views to the west include Lasalle Park and industrial/waterfront uses, including a Frank Lloyd 

Wright boathouse and marinas/boat clubs. The railroad extends northeast under the elevated I190 highway and continues north under the Peace Bridge (MP QDN4.6), between I-190, at the edge 

of Black Rock Canal, and Route 266. The Great Lakes Seaway Trail follows Route 266 where it is set 

back from the railroad along the canal from MPs QDN4.8 to QDN6.3. Steep slopes and vegetation 

obscure views from the railroad in some locations of Route 266 businesses. Where slopes flatten, 

views from the railroad include the nearby canal, adjoining Squaw Island, and businesses on Route 

266. The railroad extends inland under the I-190/Route 198 Interchange (MP QDN6.2), between a 

transmission line right-of-way (that extends north to MP QDN8), on the west, and industrial uses on 

the east. The viewshed includes industrial uses along the railroad through the remainder of the city 

of Buffalo and town of Tonawanda. The railroad crosses I-290 at MP QDN10.75, and extends 

through flat industrial areas/institutional areas at-grade passing into the outskirts of the city of 

Tonawanda. The railroad continues north on elevated, forested embankment through the 

remainder of the city, where the views consist of more densely developed residential and 

commercial buildings and institutions in neighborhoods adjoining the railroad. The railroad passes 

over the Erie Canal/Ellicot Creek at MP QDN12.7 and the Erie Canal at a swing span bridge (MP 

QDN13.4). 

Entering Niagara County (MPs QDN13 to QDN28), the railroad passes through the Gateway Park 

on the Erie Canal and continues on a raised forested embankment through densely developed 

neighborhoods in the city of North Tonawanda, and continues at-grade through less densely 

developed industrial areas approaching the riverfront to the north. Although the railroad extends 

close to the riverfront off Tonawanda Island, views of the Little River are obstructed by industrial 

buildings. Continuing north, the views from the railroad include industries and more densely 

developed neighborhoods on the east. Where the railroad extends alongside Routes 265/384 

(River Road) and Gratwick Riverside Park (MP QDN15.7), the Niagara River is visible, and lands on 

the east side become more sparsely developed, transitioning to farmlands and forestlands at the 

outskirts of the city. The Great Lakes Seaway Trail follows River Road where it closely adjoins the 

railroad in this area (MPs QDN15.5 to QDN16.8). To the north, outside the city limits, views of the 

riverfront are obscured by forest vegetation and residences, and the railroad turns north, with 

viewsheds predominantly consisting of agricultural and forestlands, with scattered residences and 

businesses visible from the tracks, as the railroad extends north through the rural/suburban areas 

between the major metropolitan areas. Approaching the city of Niagara Falls, the viewshed 

becomes more urban. The railroad crosses under I-190 near a transmission line right-of-way in the 

vicinity of a tow lot and trailer/industrial storage yard, and then extends north of the Niagara Falls 

Page G-114 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation Tier 1 Draft EIS

yard to the Niagara Falls Station (MP QDN27).

Views from the Railroad: 125 Study Area

In Rensselaer County (MPs QH142 to QH143), Alternative 125 would follow along the existing the 

Empire Corridor north to the Albany-Rensselaer Station, then would continue south to a new 

crossing of the Hudson River. The views along this mile would be largely residential and industrial, 

along with the views of the Hudson River to the west.

In Albany County (MPs QH143 to QH157), the 125 Study Area extends through industrialized 

waterfront, then would follow interstate highways between MP QH144, at the I-787 convergence 

with the New York State Thruway (I-87) (to MP QH145), and MP QH157 at the Schenectady county 

line. The majority of the areas adjoining the highway consist of forested, undeveloped areas, 

particularly south of the interstate highway, with urban development clustered at interchanges. 

The New York State Thruway and I-787 extend through the outskirts of the city of Albany, forming 

a dividing line between the urban areas of the city, on the north, and largely undeveloped areas and 

parks on the south, including Albany Pine Bush State Unique Area and a golf course. The viewshed 

along the highway is heavily buffered by forest along the majority of the highway right-of-way, and 

the median along the New York State Thruway consists of grass and becomes wide and forested in 

many locations, particularly on the west end of the county. Views of adjoining properties are 

limited, but adjoining buildings and urban areas are more visible within the city of Albany, on the 

east end of the county.

Entering Schenectady County (MPs QH157 to QH174), the 125 Study Area continues to follow the 

New York State Thruway (I-90) to MP QH159. The corridor extends north of I-90 alongside 

industrial and residential areas, passing along the outskirts of the more urbanized area in the town 

of Rotterdam, crossing west again across I-90 and I-88 between MPs QH161 and QH162. To the 

west, the 125 Study Area extends through primarily undeveloped forested or farmlands, extending 

across only six low-density development roads in the seven miles until the corridor approaches and 

extends across U.S. Route 20. The corridor parallels the highway to the south, and extending across 

crossroads that intersect the highway to the north, crossing into Schoharie County at Schoharie 

Creek.

In Schoharie County (MPs QH174 to QH180.7 ), the corridor continues adjacent to, and south of, 

U.S. Route 20, a New York State scenic byway, over a distance of approximately 8.5 miles, crossing 

northwest across the highway at MP QH177.5. The corridor extends through primarily forested 

and agricultural lands, with scattered developments close to crossing roads. West of MP QH178, 

where the corridor crosses Routes 162/30A and an intersecting road, north of U.S. Route 20, the 

corridor crosses only two more crossroads where it extends west to the county line, passing 

primarily through forested, undeveloped lands.

In Montgomery County (MPs QH180.7 to QH202), the 125 Study Area extends through 

predominantly rural agricultural and forested areas that bypass urban areas and villages. The 

corridor crosses 19 through roads, of which only five are state highway routes, and viewsheds of 

buildings are largely restricted to development along these crossroads. However, many buildings 

may be shielded from view by forest and vegetated buffers. Forested areas are more prominent on 

the eastern part of the county, and the viewsheds in the western half consist primarily of farmlands.

In Herkimer County (MPs QH202 to QH227.3), the viewsheds consist predominantly of rural 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page G-115

New York State Department of Transportation 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation 

agricultural and forestlands, where the corridor crosses the northernmost portion of the county. 

The majority of urban views (cross streets and buildings) are in the central portion of the county, 

where the corridor crosses the southern outskirts of the village of Ilion. The corridor crosses 

approximately 23 through roads, of which seven are numbered state routes. 

The 125 Study Area would provide views of primarily rural agricultural and forested lands in 

Oneida County (MPs QH227.3 to QH249.3). The corridor would cross 28 through roads, of which 

nine are state routes. The corridor extends through the outskirts of the city of Sherrill on the 

western end of the county. 

In Madison County (MPs QH249.3 to QH264), the corridor would provide views of largely rural 

forested and agricultural lands, passing through relatively undeveloped lands on the outskirts of 

the city of Oneida. The buildings and developments are largely restricted to the seventeen through 

roads, including two state routes, that the corridor would cross. The corridor would also cross 

through the Old Erie Canal/Erie Canal State Park at MPs QH 260.1 and QH262.3. 

In Onondaga County (MPs QH264 to QH295.6), the 125 Study Area provides views of primarily 

agricultural and forested areas where it extends through the eastern part of the county, rejoining 

the 90/110 Study Area (MP 283) at MP QH268.7, on the south side of the rail yard. Views of 

buildings and development are limited largely to the five through streets crossed by the corridor. 

The corridor passes over the Old Erie Canal/Eric Canal State Park at MP QH265.8. The 125 Study 

Area follows the 90/110 Study Area through downtown Syracuse, as described in the previous 

section. Just east of the Camillus Airport, the 125 Study Area deviates from the 90/110 Study Area

(MP 297.5) to the northwest (at MP QH284), extending through primarily rural agricultural and 

forested lands, with development largely restricted to the 14 through roads and one state highway 

that the corridor would cross. The corridor would also cross the New York State Thruway (I-90) at 

MP QH286.2. 

In Cayuga County (MPs QH295.6 to QH306.6), the viewshed consists primarily of rural agricultural 

and forested lands, with development largely limited to buildings on the 13 through roads and two 

state highways. 

In Wayne County (MPs QH306.6 to QH342), the corridor crosses the Erie Canal/Seneca River at 

the eastern county line. The viewsheds in the county consist largely of farm or forestlands through 

this rural landscape. Development is very low-density, and views of buildings would largely be 

restricted to the 47 local roads and 7 state highways crossed by the corridor.

In Monroe County (MPs QH342 to QH371.6), the 125 Study Area extends through primarily 

residential neighborhoods, crossing Route 31F, which is fronted by commercial uses before 

rejoining the 90/110 Study Area (MP 360.8) at MP QH345.25 near the Fairport Village line and 

following the railroad to MP QH361. The viewsheds consist largely of rural agricultural or 

forestland, with buildings primarily located along the 15 roads, and 2 state highways along the 

corridor. The 125 Atudy Area diverges from the 90/110 Study Area (MP 376.5) just east of the I490 crossing west of the city of Rochester. The corridor crosses through more urban/industrial 

viewsheds closer to the interstate, but extends through largely forested viewsheds, with more rural 

agricultural lands to the west. Residential developments and buildings are more visible along the 

five state highways and the six through roads, although the corridor extends through or near other 

residential developments. 

In Genesee County (MPs QH371.6 to QH401.4), the viewsheds consist primarily of rural 

Page G-116 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation Tier 1 Draft EIS

agricultural and forested rural landscapes. Views of buildings and development are largely 

restricted to the 23 through roads crossed by the corridor and the five state highways. 

In Erie County (MPs QH401.4 to QH426), the viewsheds consist of rural agricultural and forested 

landscape, extending through one trailer park and becoming more residential to the west. Where 

the 125 Study Area turns south, crossing the New York State Thruway at MP QH410.5, views of 

more urban, commercial/industrial areas are more prominent along Route 31 and where the 

corridor merges with the 90/110 Study Area (MP 427) at MP QH413.

13. Farmlands

13.1 Empire Corridor South

The Empire Corridor South extending north from (and including) New York through the Hudson 

Valley to Rensselaer County includes three urbanized counties. All of the Build alternatives follow 

the existing Empire Corridor South for the majority of its length, deviating only in Rensselaer 

County, where Alternative 125 splits off 1.6 miles south of where the existing Empire Corridor 

turns to the west. The study area within the seven counties of Empire Corridor South contains 405

acres of prime farmland (31 additional acres of prime farmland if drained), 393 acres of farmland of 

statewide importance, and 387 acres of Agricultural Districts. 

The study area within New York, Bronx, and Westchester Counties is urbanized as defined by the 

U.S. Census Bureau and therefore, by definition does not contain federally protected prime 

farmland. There are also no prime farmland soils mapped in New York and the Bronx, and there 

are 59 acres mapped in Westchester County, but these do not meet the federal definition of 

protected prime farmland since Westchester County is within a Census-defined urbanized area. 

There are no Agricultural Districts within these three urbanized counties. 

Putnam County is not defined as an urbanized area, but the portion of the county within the study 

area contains only 9 acres of prime farmland, one acre of prime farmland if drained, and one acre of 

farmland of statewide importance. There are no Agricultural Districts in the study area in Putnam 

County. 

More than half of Dutchess County in the study area is within a Census-defined urbanized area, 

and the remaining areas contain 120 acres of prime farmland, 21 acres of prime farmland if 

drained, and 233 acres of farmland of statewide importance. Dutchess County also has 112 acres 

within state-designated Agricultural Districts. About one-third of Columbia County within the 

study area is an urbanized area, and most of the mapped farmland soils are situated outside the 

urbanized area. In Columbia County, there are 69 acres of prime farmland (7 acres of prime 

farmland if drained), 102 acres of farmland of statewide importance, and 148 acres within 

Agricultural Districts.

Roughly half of the study area in Rensselaer County is within an urbanized area where the 90/110 

and 125 Study Areas diverge, and the remaining area contains 148 acres of prime farmland, and 17

acres of farmland of statewide importance. There are 126 acres within Agricultural Districts in 

Rensselaer County. 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page G-117

New York State Department of Transportation 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation 

13.2 Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch: 90/110 Study Area

The Empire Corridor West and Niagara Branch extending west of (and including) Albany to Niagara 

Falls includes large tracts of agricultural land within the 600-foot-wide study area. The study area 

in the thirteen counties contains a total of 3,610 acres of prime farmland, an additional 1,952 acres 

of prime farmland if drained, and 1,647 acres of farmland of statewide importance. Approximately 

3,280 acres of the study area between (and including) Albany County and Niagara County are 

within state-designated Agricultural Districts.

Albany County is within an urbanized area; however, there are 8 acres of prime farmland and 26 

acres of farmland of statewide importance within this county. There are no Agricultural Districts in 

the study area within Albany County. 

Most of Schenectady County lies within an urbanized area, and the remaining areas contain 163

acres of prime farmland, and 39 acres of farmland of statewide importance. There are 12 acres 

within Agricultural Districts in the study area in Schenectady County. The study area in 

Montgomery County is primarily rural and contains 484 acres of prime farmland (an additional 6 

acres if drained) and 88 acres of farmland of statewide importance. Within Montgomery County, 

approximately 610 acres are within Agricultural Districts. Herkimer County has urbanized areas 

that follow the rail corridor, and contains 328 acres of prime farmland, 4 acres of prime farmland if 

drained, 19 acres of farmland of statewide importance, and 159 acres are within Agricultural 

Districts. 

More than two-thirds of the rail corridor in Oneida County consists of urbanized areas around the 

cities of Utica and Rome. The remainder of the Oneida County within the study area contains 295

acres of prime farmland, 270 acres of prime farmland if drained, and 87 acres of farmland of 

statewide importance. The area within 300 feet of the corridor centerline in Oneida County 

contains 24 acres within Agricultural Districts. Approximately half of the rail corridor in Madison 

County consists of urbanized areas within the city of Oneida, but the remainder contains 133 acres 

of prime farmland (an additional 193 acres of prime farmland if drained), and 154 acres of 

farmland of statewide importance. The study area in Madison County contains 132 acres within 

Agricultural Districts.

Almost half of the study area in Onondaga County consists of urbanized areas surrounding the city 

of Syracuse, but the remaining area contains 351 acres of prime farmland, 256 acres of prime 

farmland if drained, and 169 acres of farmland of statewide importance, for a total of 776 acres of 

farmland. There are 39 acres within Agricultural Districts within the county. Cayuga County is 

predominantly rural and agricultural. The study area within Cayuga County contains 266 acres of 

prime farmland, 24 acres of prime farmland if drained, 284 acres of farmland of statewide 

importance, and 223 acres within Agricultural Districts. 

Wayne County is primarily rural and agricultural, with 609 acres of prime farmland, 138 acres of 

prime farmland if drained, and 268 acres of farmland of statewide importance. The county contains 

1,004 acres within Agricultural Districts.

Most of Monroe County within the study area consists of urbanized areas surrounding the city of 

Rochester, but the remaining area contain 155 acres of prime farmland, 214 acres of prime 

farmland if drained, and 33 acres of farmland of statewide importance. The areas within 300 feet of 

the corridor centerline in Monroe County include 118 acres within Agricultural Districts.

Page G-118 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation Tier 1 Draft EIS

Genesee County within the study area is primarily rural and agricultural and areas within 300 feet 

of the corridor centerline contain 755 acres of prime farmland, 463 acres of prime farmland if 

drained, and 338 acres of farmland of statewide importance. There are 650 acres within 

Agricultural Districts within the study area in Genesee County.

Most of Erie County within the study area consists of urban areas surrounding the cities of Buffalo, 

Tonawanda, and Niagara Falls, but the remainder of the study area within the county contains 60

acres of prime farmland, 332 acres of prime farmland if drained, and 133 acres of farmland of 

statewide importance. There are 225 acres within Agricultural Districts within the study area in 

Erie County. All of Niagara County along the remainder of the Niagara Branch consists of 

urbanized area, although there are 3 acres of prime farmland, 52 acres of prime farmland if drained, 

and 9 acres of farmland of statewide importance within the 600-foot wide study area. There are 

also 84 acres within Agricultural Districts in Niagara County. 

13.3 Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch: 125 Study Area

The 125 Study Area follows a more direct route between Rensselaer and Buffalo, which bypasses 

several of the major metropolitan areas and stations sites (Schenectady, Amsterdam, Utica, and 

Rome) along the Empire Corridor West and extends through more rural and agricultural areas. 

Within the 600-foot wide study area of the 125 Study Area in the Empire Corridor West/Niagara 

Branch, there are fourteen counties containing a total of 5,139 acres of prime farmland, an 

additional 3,346 acres of prime farmland if drained, and 3,076 acres of farmland of statewide 

importance. Approximately 7,779 acres of the study area between (and including) Albany County 

and Niagara County are within state-designated Agricultural Districts.

As noted above, Albany County is within an urbanized area. However, there are 64 acres of prime 

farmland and 89 acres of farmland of statewide importance in this county within the 125 Study 

Area. Albany County does not include any Agricultural Districts within the 125 Study Area. 

The 125 Study Area follows a more southerly, rural route through Schenectady County, with the 

exception of the eastern third of the route, which lies within an urbanized area. The remaining 

areas contain 56 acres of prime farmland (an additional 403 acres if drained), and 263 acres of 

farmland of statewide importance. There are 159 acres within Agricultural Districts within the 125 

Study Area in Schenectady County. 

The 125 Study Area passes through Schoharie County. The study area in the county contains 132 

acres of prime farmland (an additional 104 acres if drained), and 79 acres of farmland of statewide 

importance. Within Schoharie County, approximately 25 acres are within agricultural districts. 

The study area in Montgomery and Herkimer counties bypasses urban areas along the Empire 

Corridor in Amsterdam and Herkimer and other communities that developed along the railroad. 

The study area in Montgomery County is primarily rural and contains 56 acres of prime farmland 

(an additional 770 acres if drained) and 488 acres of farmland of statewide importance. Within 

Montgomery County, approximately 1,078 acres are within Agricultural Districts. Herkimer 

County along the 125 mph rail corridor is predominantly rural, and contains 216 acres of prime 

farmland (an additional 286 acres if drained), 460 acres of farmland of statewide importance, and 

82 acres of Agricultural Districts. 

The 125 Study Area bypasses the cities of Utica and Rome, although the eastern half of the study 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page G-119

New York State Department of Transportation 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation 

area extends through urbanized areas to the south of these cities. The remainder of Oneida 

County within the study area contains 827 acres of prime farmland, 357 acres of prime farmland if 

drained, and 111 acres of farmland of statewide importance. The area within 300 feet of the 125 

Study Area corridor centerline in Oneida County contains 374 acres within Agricultural Districts. 

Although the 125 Study Area bypasses the city of Oneida, almost half of the rail corridor in Madison 

County consists of urbanized areas surrounding the city. The remainder of the county contains 244

acres of prime farmland (an additional 60 acres of prime farmland if drained), and 335 acres of 

farmland of statewide importance. The study area in Madison County contains 366 acres within 

Agricultural Districts.

The 125 Study Area parallels and merges with the Empire Corridor West in Onondaga County

through the Syracuse area. Almost half of the study area in Onondaga County consists of urbanized 

areas surrounding the city of Syracuse, but the remaining area contains 473 acres of prime 

farmland, 140 acres of prime farmland if drained, and 319 acres of farmland of statewide 

importance, for a total of 932 acres of farmland. There are 464 acres within Agricultural Districts 

within the county. 

The 125 Study Area takes a more northerly route bypassing the existing railroad corridor through 

Cayuga and Wayne counties. Cayuga and Wayne counties are predominantly rural and agricultural. 

The 125 mph study area within the Cayuga County contains 362 acres of prime farmland, 90 acres 

of prime farmland if drained, 160 acres of farmland of statewide importance, and 806 acres within 

Agricultural Districts. The study area in Wayne County contains 1,246 acres of prime farmland, 

298 acres of prime farmland if drained, and 271 acres of farmland of statewide importance. The 

county contains 2,214 acres within Agricultural Districts.

The 125 Study Area bypasses the Empire Corridor West to the north and merges with the existing 

rail corridor through the Rochester area, before splitting off to the north again on the west end of 

the county. Most of Monroe County within the study area consists of urbanized areas surrounding

the city of Rochester, but the remaining area contains 215 acres of prime farmland, 76 acres of 

prime farmland if drained, and 43 acres of farmland of statewide importance. The areas within 300 

feet of the 125 mph corridor centerline in Monroe County include 267 acres within Agricultural 

Districts.

The 125 Study Area extends on a more northerly route through Genesee County, bypassing an 

urban area in Batavia. Genesee County within the 125 mph study area is primarily rural and 

agricultural and areas within 300 feet of the 125 mph corridor centerline contain 1,002 acres of 

prime farmland, 427 acres of prime farmland if drained, and 369 acres of farmland of statewide 

importance. There are 1,476 acres within Agricultural Districts within the 125 mph study area in 

Genesee County.

The 125 Study Area turns south to merge with the Empire Corridor West five miles east of the 

Buffalo-Depew Station in eastern Erie County. Most of Erie County within the study area consists 

of urban areas surrounding the cities of Buffalo, Tonawanda, and Niagara Falls, but the remainder 

of the 125 mph study area within the county contains 243 acres of prime farmland, 283 acres of 

prime farmland if drained, and 80 acres of farmland of statewide importance. There are 384 acres 

within Agricultural Districts within the study area in Erie County. All of Niagara County along the 

remainder of the Niagara Branch consists of urbanized areas, although there are 3 acres of prime 

farmland, 52 acres of prime farmland if drained, and 9 acres of farmland of statewide importance in 

the 125 Study Area. There are also 84 acres within Agricultural Districts in Niagara County.

Page G-120 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
New York

Connecticut

New York

New Jersey

Hudson River

Yonkers

Poughkeepsie

New York Penn Station

§ ̈¦87 § ̈¦84

§ ̈¦287

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦280

§ ̈¦78

§ ̈¦95

§ ̈¦495

B e r g e n B e r g e n

E s s e x E s s e x

U n i o n U n i o n

P a s s a i c P a s s a i c

H u d s o n H u d s o n

M o r r i s M o r r i s

O r a n g e O r a n g e

U l s t e r U l s t e r

R o c k l a n d R o c k l a n d

D u t c h e s s D u t c h e s s

P u t n a m P u t n a m

W e s t c h e s t e r W e s t c h e s t e r

Q u e e n s Q u e e n s

B r o n x B r o n x

K i n g s K i n g s

N e w Y o r k N e w Y o r k

New York

Ramapo

Tuxedo

Cortlandt

Fishkill

Newburgh

Gardiner

Philipstown

Yorktown

Plattekill

Montgomery

La Grange

East Fishkill

Woodbury

Lloyd

Highlands

Kent

Cornwall

Greenburgh

New Windsor

Monroe

Stony Point

Wappinger

Haverstraw

Shawangunk

Mount Pleasant

Clarkstown

Putnam Valley

Orangetown

Yonkers

Blooming Grove

Chester

Poughkeepsie

Marlborough

Ossining

Hamptonburgh

New Castle

Somers

Crawford

New Rochelle

New Paltz

Beacon

Peekskill

Scarsdale

Rochester

Eastchester

Mount Vernon

Pelham

Beekman

North Hempstead

Wallkill

Copyright:© 2013 Esri

Hudson River

Hudson River

New York

Connecticut

Putnam

Acres

Hudson

Rhinecliff

Poughkeepsie

Albany-Rensselaer

§ ̈¦87

§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦787

§ ̈¦890

A l b a n y A l b a n y

D u t c h e s s D u t c h e s s

C o l u m b i a C o l u m b i a

U l s t e r U l s t e r

G r e e n e G r e e n e

R e n s s e l a e r R e n s s e l a e r

Cairo

Catskill

Ghent

Milan

Schodack

Saugerties

Colonie

Westerlo

Stanford

Lloyd

Esopus

Clinton

Gallatin

Guilderland

Coeymans

Washington

Ulster

Claverack

Bethlehem

Chatham

New Scotland

Red Hook

Athens

Berne

Taghkanic

Hyde Park

Greenville

Rhinebeck

Ancram

Coxsackie

Livingston

Nassau

New Baltimore

Hunter

Pine Plains

Dover

Brunswick

Knox

Union Vale La Grange

Albany

Kinderhook

Copake

Stuyvesant

Amenia

Pleasant Valley

New Paltz

Clermont

Greenport

Troy

East Greenbush

Stockport

Northeast

North Greenbush Poestenkill

Germantown

Woodstock

Kingston

Poughkeepsie

Durham

Princetown

Plattekill

Jewett

Hudson

Cohoes

Watervliet

Marbletown

Copyright:© 2013 Esri

PENNSYLVANIA

ONTARIO

(CANADA)

NEW YORK

6 5 4 3

1

2

KEY MAP

0 2.5 5 10

Miles

MAP 1 MAP 2

I Tier 1 EIS

High Speed Rail

Empire Corridor Program

Farmland Map

Source: NYS GIS 

Amtrak Station

Existing Empire Corridor

Alternative 125 Corridor

2010 Census Urban Area

All areas are prime farmland

Farmland of statewide importance

Alt. 125 as shown is a potential corridor used to analyze the potential operating characteristics, environmental impacts and cost for this speed (125 mph) threshold. *

*

Exhibit G-16
Hudson River

Amsterdam

Schenectady

Albany-Rensselaer

§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦88

§ ̈¦87

§ ̈¦787

§ ̈¦890

F u l t o n F u l t o n

O t s e g o O t s e g o

S a r a t o g a S a r a t o g a H e r k i m e r H e r k i m e r

A l b a n y A l b a n y

M o n t g o m e r y M o n t g o m e r y

S c h o h a r i e S c h o h a r i e

S c h e n e c t a d y S c h e n e c t a d y

R e n s s e l a e r R e n s s e l a e r

Root

Glen

Otsego

Knox

Colonie

Florida

Minden

Mayfield

Galway

Stark

Duanesburg

Greenfield

Glenville

Malta

Milton

Berne

Sharon

Warren

Palatine

Fairfield Caroga

Oppenheim

Seward

Perth

Hartwick

Carlisle

Ephratah

Wright

Mohawk

Wilton

Springfield

Stratford

Providence

Bleecker

Danube

Westford

Ballston

Salisbury

Columbia

Herkimer

Exeter

Richfield

Cobleskill

Roseboom

Decatur

Fulton Bethlehem

Newport

Johnstown

Middlefield

Guilderland

Clifton Park

Charleston

Charlton

Broadalbin

Canajoharie

Rotterdam

Manheim

Stillwater

Albany

Cherry Valley

Schuyler

Schoharie

Middleburgh

New Scotland

Amsterdam

German Flatts

Little Falls

Princetown

Richmondville

Worcester

Esperance

Saratoga Springs

Niskayuna

St Johnsville

Summit

Edinburg

Northampton

Schenectady

Waterford

Cohoes

Gloversville

Milford Maryland

Winfield

Copyright:© 2013 Esri

Oneida

Lake

Rome

Utica

Syracuse § ̈¦90

§ ̈¦81

§ ̈¦690

§ ̈¦481

§ ̈¦790

O n e i d a O n e i d a

O n o n d a g a O n o n d a g a

M a d i s o n M a d i s o n

O s w e g o O s w e g o

C a y u g a C a y u g a

H e r k i m e r H e r k i m e r

O t s e g o O t s e g o

C o r t l a n d C o r t l a n d

Vienna

Rome

Clay

Verona

Sullivan

Constantia

Niles

Pompey

Lee

Eaton

Cicero

Brookfield

Lysander

Fabius

Manlius

Nelson

Floyd

Onondaga Paris

Lenox

Trenton

Marcy

Tully

Vernon

Madison

Granby

Otisco

Elbridge

Fenner

La Fayette

Lebanon Hamilton

Kirkland

Camillus

Marshall

Schroeppel

Van Buren

Western

Russia

Lincoln

Litchfield

Plainfield

Hastings

Ira

Annsville

Camden

Sangerfield

Steuben

Scott

Cazenovia

De Witt

Spafford

Skaneateles

Frankfort

Deerfield

Marcellus

Augusta

Exeter

Schuyler

Utica

Oneida

Westmoreland

Winfield

Syracuse

Georgetown

Stockbridge

DeRuyter

Salina

Smithfield

West Monroe

Whitestown

Cuyler

Bridgewater

Volney

New Hartford

Cato

Owasco

Sennett

Geddes

Richfield

Remsen

Columbia

Palermo

Edmeston

Fulton

Sherrill

Amboy

Copyright:© 2013 Esri

PENNSYLVANIA

ONTARIO

(CANADA)

NEW YORK

6 5 4 3

1

2

KEY MAP

MAP 4

MAP 3

I 0 5 10 2.5

Miles

Tier 1 EIS

High Speed Rail

Empire Corridor Program

Farmland Map

Source: NYS GIS 

Amtrak Station

Existing Empire Corridor

Alternative 125 Corridor

2010 Census Urban Area

All areas are prime farmland

Farmland of statewide importance

Alt. 125 as shown is a potential corridor used to analyze the potential operating characteristics, environmental impacts and cost for this speed (125 mph) threshold.

*

*

Exhibit G-16
Lake

Ontario

Rochester

§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦390

§ ̈¦490 § ̈¦590 W a y n e W a y n e

M o n r o e M o n r o e

O n t a r i o O n t a r i o

C a y u g a C a y u g a

S e n e c a S e n e c a

L i v i n g s t o n L i v i n g s t o n

O s w e g o O s w e g o

Ira

Sodus

Galen

Phelps

Chili

Fayette

Cato

Tyre

Greece

Huron

Arcadia

Parma

Rose

Lima

Lyons

Butler

Victor

Sterling

Rush

Ogden

Wolcott

Hannibal

Riga

Mendon

Victory

York

Penfield

Seneca

Ontario

Macedon

Marion

Webster

Perinton Palmyra

Junius

Henrietta

Hopewell

Aurelius

Conquest

Sennett

Walworth

Caledonia

Rochester

Livonia Gorham

Fleming

Geneseo Bristol

Hamlin

Wheatland

Gates

Throop

Oswego

Niles

Avon

Canandaigua

Savannah

Farmington

Brutus

Manchester

Williamson

Owasco

Mentz

Pittsford

Waterloo

Springport

Seneca Falls

East Bloomfield

Richmond

Brighton

Montezuma

West Bloomfield

Geneva

Scipio

Auburn

Lysander

Irondequoit Sweden

East Rochester

Copyright:© 2013 Esri

Ontario

(Canada)

New York

(United States)

Lake

Erie

Lake

Ontario

Lake

Ontario

Buffalo-Depew

Niagara Falls

Buffalo-Exchange Street

§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦190 § ̈¦490

§ ̈¦290

E r i e E r i e

N i a g a r a N i a g a r a

G e n e s e e G e n e s e e

O r l e a n s O r l e a n s

W y o m i n g W y o m i n g

M o n r o e M o n r o e

L i v i n g s t o n L i v i n g s t o n

E r i e E r i e

York

Barre Royalton

Elba

Riga

Darien

Batavia

Wilson

Buffalo

Elma

Shelby

Amherst

Hartland

Attica

Clarence

Le Roy

Alabama

Alden

Hamlin

Newstead

Porter

Newfane

Byron

Ridgeway

Gaines

Bennington

Cambria

Pavilion

Murray

Bethany

Sweden

Pembroke

Marilla

Stafford

Lancaster

Bergen

Clarkson

Alexander

Clarendon

Carlton

Perry

Yates

Kendall

Ogden

Caledonia

Covington

Aurora Wales Sheldon Leicester

Somerset

Warsaw

Lockport

Lewiston Albion

Middlebury

Wheatfield Oakfield

Pendleton

Grand Island

Hamburg

Cheektowaga

Orchard Park

Tonawanda

West Seneca

Wheatland

Niagara Falls

Niagara

Orangeville

North Tonawanda

Lackawanna

Copyright:© 2013 Esri

PENNSYLVANIA

ONTARIO

(CANADA)

NEW YORK

6 5 4 3

1

2

KEY MAP

I 0 5 10 2.5

Miles

Tier 1 EIS

High Speed Rail

Empire Corridor Program

MAP 6

MAP 5

Farmland Map

Source: NYS GIS 

Amtrak Station

Existing Empire Corridor

Alternative 125 Corridor

2010 Census Urban Area

All areas are prime farmland

Farmland of statewide importance

Alt. 125 as shown is a potential corridor used to analyze the potential operating characteristics, environmental impacts and cost for this speed (125 mph) threshold.

*

*

Exhibit G-16
New York

New York

New Jersey

Hudson River

Yonkers

Poughkeepsie

New York Penn Station

§ ̈¦87 § ̈¦84

§ ̈¦287

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦280

§ ̈¦78

§ ̈¦95

§ ̈¦495

B e r g e n B e r g e n

E s s e x E s s e x

U n i o n U n i o n

P a s s a i c P a s s a i c

H u d s o n H u d s o n

M o r r i s M o r r i s

O r a n g e O r a n g e

U l s t e r U l s t e r

R o c k l a n d R o c k l a n d

D u t c h e s s D u t c h e s s

P u t n a m P u t n a m

W e s t c h e s t e r W e s t c h e s t e r

Q u e e n s Q u e e n s

B r o n x B r o n x

K i n g s K i n g s

N e w Y o r k N e w Y o r k

New York

Ramapo

Tuxedo

Cortlandt

Fishkill

Newburgh

Gardiner

Philipstown

Yorktown

Plattekill

Montgomery

La Grange

East Fishkill

Woodbury

Lloyd

Highlands

Kent

Cornwall

Greenburgh

New Windsor

Monroe

Stony Point

Wappinger

Haverstraw

Shawangunk

Mount Pleasant

Clarkstown

Putnam Valley

Orangetown

Yonkers

Blooming Grove

Chester

Poughkeepsie

Marlborough

Ossining

Hamptonburgh

New Castle

Somers

Crawford

New Rochelle

New Paltz

Beacon

Peekskill

Scarsdale

Rochester

Eastchester

Mount Vernon

Pelham

Beekman

North Hempstead

Wallkill

Hudson River

Hudson River

New York

Connecticut

Putnam

Acres

Hudson

Rhinecliff

Poughkeepsie

Albany-Rensselaer

§ ̈¦87

§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦787

§ ̈¦890

A l b a n y A l b a n y

D u t c h e s s D u t c h e s s

C o l u m b i a C o l u m b i a

U l s t e r U l s t e r

G r e e n e G r e e n e

R e n s s e l a e r R e n s s e l a e r

Cairo

Catskill

Ghent

Milan

Schodack

Saugerties

Colonie

Westerlo

Stanford

Lloyd

Esopus

Clinton

Gallatin

Guilderland

Coeymans

Washington

Ulster

Claverack

Bethlehem

Chatham

New Scotland

Red Hook

Athens

Berne

Taghkanic

Hyde Park

Greenville

Rhinebeck

Ancram

Coxsackie

Livingston

Nassau

New Baltimore

Hunter

Pine Plains

Dover

Brunswick

Knox

Union Vale La Grange

Albany

Kinderhook

Copake

Stuyvesant

Amenia

Pleasant Valley

New Paltz

Clermont

Greenport

Troy

East Greenbush

Stockport

Northeast

North Greenbush Poestenkill

Germantown

Woodstock

Kingston

Poughkeepsie

Durham

Princetown

Plattekill

Jewett

Hudson

Cohoes

Watervliet

Marbletown

PENNSYLVANIA

ONTARIO

(CANADA)

NEW YORK

6 5 4 3

1

2

KEY MAP

0 2.5 5 10

Miles

MAP 1 MAP 2

I Tier 1 EIS

High Speed Rail

Empire Corridor Program

Cropland Map

Source: New York State Department of Agriculture;

New York State GIS. 

Amtrak Station

Existing Empire Corridor

Alternative 125 Corridor

Agricultural District

Alt. 125 as shown is a potential corridor used to analyze the potential operating characteristics, environmental impacts and cost for this speed (125 mph) threshold.

*

*

Exhibit G-17
Hudson River

Amsterdam

Schenectady

Albany-Rensselaer

§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦88

§ ̈¦87

§ ̈¦787

§ ̈¦890

F u l t o n F u l t o n

O t s e g o O t s e g o

S a r a t o g a S a r a t o g a H e r k i m e r H e r k i m e r

A l b a n y A l b a n y

M o n t g o m e r y M o n t g o m e r y

S c h o h a r i e S c h o h a r i e

S c h e n e c t a d y S c h e n e c t a d y

R e n s s e l a e r R e n s s e l a e r

Root

Glen

Otsego

Knox

Colonie

Florida

Minden

Mayfield

Galway

Stark

Duanesburg

Greenfield

Glenville

Malta

Milton

Berne

Sharon

Warren

Palatine

Fairfield Caroga

Oppenheim

Seward

Perth

Hartwick

Carlisle

Ephratah

Wright

Mohawk

Wilton

Springfield

Stratford

Providence

Bleecker

Danube

Westford

Ballston

Salisbury

Columbia

Herkimer

Exeter

Richfield

Cobleskill

Roseboom

Decatur

Fulton Bethlehem

Newport

Johnstown

Middlefield

Guilderland

Clifton Park

Charleston

Charlton

Broadalbin

Canajoharie

Rotterdam

Manheim

Stillwater

Albany

Cherry Valley

Schuyler

Schoharie

Middleburgh

New Scotland

Amsterdam

German Flatts

Little Falls

Princetown

Richmondville

Worcester

Esperance

Saratoga Springs

Niskayuna

St Johnsville

Summit

Edinburg

Northampton

Schenectady

Waterford

Cohoes

Gloversville

Milford Maryland

Winfield

Oneida

Lake

Rome

Utica

Syracuse § ̈¦90

§ ̈¦81

§ ̈¦690

§ ̈¦481

§ ̈¦790

O n e i d a O n e i d a

O n o n d a g a O n o n d a g a

M a d i s o n M a d i s o n

O s w e g o O s w e g o

C a y u g a C a y u g a

H e r k i m e r H e r k i m e r

O t s e g o O t s e g o

C o r t l a n d C o r t l a n d

Vienna

Rome

Clay

Verona

Sullivan

Constantia

Niles

Pompey

Lee

Eaton

Cicero

Brookfield

Lysander

Fabius

Manlius

Nelson

Floyd

Onondaga Paris

Lenox

Trenton

Marcy

Tully

Vernon

Madison

Granby

Otisco

Elbridge

Fenner

La Fayette

Lebanon Hamilton

Kirkland

Camillus

Marshall

Schroeppel

Van Buren

Western

Russia

Lincoln

Litchfield

Plainfield

Hastings

Ira

Annsville

Camden

Sangerfield

Steuben

Scott

Cazenovia

De Witt

Spafford

Skaneateles

Frankfort

Deerfield

Marcellus

Augusta

Exeter

Schuyler

Utica

Oneida

Westmoreland

Winfield

Syracuse

Georgetown

Stockbridge

DeRuyter

Salina

Smithfield

West Monroe

Whitestown

Cuyler

Bridgewater

Volney

New Hartford

Cato

Owasco

Sennett

Geddes

Richfield

Remsen

Columbia

Palermo

Edmeston

Fulton

Sherrill

Amboy

PENNSYLVANIA

ONTARIO

(CANADA)

NEW YORK

6 5 4 3

1

2

KEY MAP

MAP 4

MAP 3

I 0 5 10 2.5

Miles

Tier 1 EIS

High Speed Rail

Empire Corridor Program

Cropland Map

Source: New York State Department of Agriculture;

New York State GIS. 

Amtrak Station

Existing Empire Corridor

Alternative 125 Corridor

Agricultural District

Alt. 125 as shown is a potential corridor used to analyze the potential operating characteristics, environmental impacts and cost for this speed (125 mph) threshold.

*

*

Exhibit G-17
Lake

Ontario

ra

s

0 ft of the existing rail.

Rochester

§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦390

§ ̈¦490 § ̈¦590 W a y n e W a y n e

M o n r o e M o n r o e

O n t a r i o O n t a r i o

C a y u g a C a y u g a

S e n e c a S e n e c a

L i v i n g s t o n L i v i n g s t o n

O s w e g o O s w e g o

Ira

Sodus

Galen

Phelps

Chili

Fayette

Cato

Tyre

Greece

Huron

Arcadia

Parma

Rose

Lima

Lyons

Butler

Victor

Sterling

Rush

Ogden

Wolcott

Hannibal

Riga

Mendon

Victory

York

Penfield

Seneca

Ontario

Macedon

Marion

Webster

Perinton Palmyra

Junius

Henrietta

Hopewell

Aurelius

Conquest

Sennett

Walworth

Caledonia

Rochester

Livonia Gorham

Fleming

Geneseo Bristol

Hamlin

Wheatland

Gates

Throop

Oswego

Niles

Avon

Canandaigua

Savannah

Farmington

Brutus

Manchester

Williamson

Owasco

Mentz

Pittsford

Waterloo

Springport

Seneca Falls

East Bloomfield

Richmond

Brighton

Montezuma

West Bloomfield

Geneva

Scipio

Clarkson

Auburn

Lysander

Irondequoit Sweden

East Rochester

Ontario

(Canada)

New York

(United States)

Lake

Erie

Lake

Ontario

Lake

Ontario

Buffalo-Depew

Niagara Falls

Buffalo-Exchange Street

§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦190 § ̈¦490

§ ̈¦290

E r i e E r i e

N i a g a r a N i a g a r a

G e n e s e e G e n e s e e

O r l e a n s O r l e a n s

W y o m i n g W y o m i n g

M o n r o e M o n r o e

L i v i n g s t o n L i v i n g s t o n

E r i e E r i e

York

Barre Royalton

Elba

Riga

Darien

Batavia

Wilson

Buffalo

Elma

Shelby

Amherst

Hartland

Attica

Clarence

Le Roy

Alabama

Alden

Hamlin

Newstead

Porter

Newfane

Byron

Ridgeway

Gaines

Bennington

Cambria

Pavilion

Murray

Bethany

Sweden

Pembroke

Marilla

Stafford

Lancaster

Bergen

Clarkson

Alexander

Clarendon

Carlton

Perry

Yates

Kendall

Ogden

Caledonia

Covington

Aurora Wales Sheldon Leicester

Somerset

Warsaw

Lockport

Lewiston Albion

Middlebury

Wheatfield Oakfield

Pendleton

Grand Island

Hamburg

Cheektowaga

Orchard Park

Tonawanda

West Seneca

Wheatland

Niagara Falls

Niagara

Orangeville

North Tonawanda

Lackawanna

PENNSYLVANIA

ONTARIO

(CANADA)

NEW YORK

6 5 4 3

1

2

KEY MAP

I 0 5 10 2.5

Miles

MAP 6

MAP 5

Tier 1 EIS

High Speed Rail

Empire Corridor Program

Cropland Map

Source: New York State Department of Agriculture;

New York State GIS. 

Amtrak Station

Existing Empire Corridor

Alternative 125 Corridor

Agricultural District

Alt. 125 as shown is a potential corridor used to analyze the potential operating characteristics, environmental impacts and cost for this speed (125 mph) threshold.

*

*

Exhibit G-17
Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation Tier 1 Draft EIS

14. Contaminated and Hazardous Material

14.1 Empire Corridor South

All of the Build alternatives follow the existing Empire Corridor South for the majority of its length, 

deviating only in Rensselaer County, where Alternative 125 splits off 1.6 miles south of where the 

existing Empire Corridor turns to the west. The 90/110 Study Area has a total of 4,140 sites, of 

which 3,748 are in Manhattan (New York County). The 125 Study Area has a total of 4,135 sites, of 

which the same 3,748 are in Manhattan (New York County). The major feature along the Empire 

Corridor South is the Hudson River. 

The Hudson River PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyl) Superfund Site is located in all of the counties 

along the 142-mile Empire Corridor South. This site encompasses a nearly 200-mile stretch of the 

Hudson River extending from Hudson Falls to Battery Park in New York City.23 From 

approximately 1947 to 1977, General Electric Company (GE) discharged as much as 1.3 million 

pounds of PCBs from its capacitor manufacturing plants at the Hudson Falls and Fort Edward 

facilities into the Hudson River. As a result, the primary health risk associated with the site is the 

accumulation of PCBs in the human body through eating contaminated fish. PCBs are considered 

probable human carcinogens and are linked to other adverse health effects such as low birth 

weight, thyroid disease, and learning, memory, and immune system disorders. PCBs in the river 

sediment also affect fish and wildlife. 

In February 2002, the U.S. EPA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) for the Hudson River PCBs 

Superfund Site that calls for targeted environmental dredging of approximately 2.65 million cubic 

yards of PCB-contaminated sediment from a 40-mile section of the Upper Hudson River extending 

north of Troy, upstream of the study area. The cleanup will occur in two phases. Phase 1 of the 

project was conducted by GE with oversight by the U.S. EPA from May to November 2009. During 

this phase, approximately 283,000 cubic yards of PCB-contaminated sediment was removed from a 

six-mile stretch of the Upper Hudson River near Fort Edward, New York. In the study area, removal 

of PCB and lead in contaminated soils was also performed on Rogers Island in Columbia County. 

The U.S. EPA determined it was necessary to remove contaminated soils on the north side of the 

island. Phase 2 will remove the remainder of the contaminated river sediment targeted for dredging 

and it will take five to seven years to complete.

 

Exhibit 4-59 in Chapter 4 of the EIS summarizes the contaminated and hazardous materials sites 

within the Empire Corridor. New York County has the most contaminated and hazardous material 

sites of any county in the Empire Corridor South Segment. The majority of these, 3,667, are 

Petroleum Bulk Storage (PBS) sites. In addition, there are 64 RCRA sites, six TRIS sites and 11 

Chemical Bulk Storage (CBS) sites.

 

Bronx County has a total of 116 sites, mostly PBS (115) and RCRA (one). 

 

23 United States Environmental Protection Agency, “Hudson River PCBs.” Accessed September 26, 2011. 

<http://www.epa.gov/hudson/>.

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page G-127

New York State Department of Transportation 

 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation 

Westchester County has 52 contaminated and hazardous material sites with 16 RCRA sites, 15 

TRIS sites, 12 CBS sites, five MOSF sites, three PBS sites and one Superfund site. The majority of 

these sites are located near the cities of Yonkers, Tarrytown, Ossining and Peekskill. 

 

Putnam County has the fewest contaminated and hazardous material sites in Empire Corridor 

South with 12 PBS sites, one NPL and one Superfund site. The majority of these sites are located in 

the town of Cold Spring. 

Dutchess County has 106 contaminated and hazardous material sites, the majority of which are 

located in the city of Beacon, Crown Heights and in/around the city of Poughkeepsie. There are 87 

PBS sites, five RCRA sites, five TRIS and CBS sites, three MOSF sites and one Superfund site. 

Columbia County has 13 contaminated and hazardous material sites with 11 PBS sites and two 

TRIS sites. The majority of these sites are located in the city of Hudson. 

In Rensselaer County the 90/110 Study Area has 91 contaminated and hazardous material sites 

with 51 PBS sites, nine RCRA sites, 10 TRIS and CBS sites, nine MOSF sites and two Superfund sites. 

The 125 Study Area has 86 contaminated and hazardous material sites with 47 PBS sites, nine 

RCRA sites, 10 TRIS and CBS sites, eight MOSF sites and two Superfund sites. The majority of these 

are located in the city of Rensselaer. 

14.2 Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch: 90/110 Study Area

The Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch 90/110 Study Area has a total of 2,271 sites, less than 

the Empire Corridor South. The majority are located in the more urbanized counties in: Erie 

County (447 sites), Monroe County (373 sites), Oneida County (281 sites), and Onondaga County 

(238 sites). 

Albany County has 188 contaminated and hazardous material sites, the majority of which are 

located in the city of Albany. There are 155 PBS sites, 13 RCRA sites, nine TRIS and CBS Sites, one 

NPL and one Superfund site. 

 

Schenectady County has 114 contaminated and hazardous material sites with 106 PBS sites, one 

RCRA site, three TRIS sites, two CBS and two MOSF sites. The majority of these sites are located in 

and around the city of Schenectady. 

Montgomery County has 139 contaminated and hazardous material sites with 119 PBS sites, 10 

RCRA sites, five CBS sites, four TRIS sites and one Superfund site. The sites are generally located in 

the larger cities/towns such as the city of Amsterdam, Fonda, the town of Canajoharie, Fort Plain 

and the town of St. Johnsville. 

Herkimer County has 127 contaminated and hazardous material sites, mostly located in the city of 

Little Falls and Ilion. There are 110 PBS sites, seven RCRA sites, six TRIS sites and four CBS sites. 

Oneida County has 281 contaminated and hazardous material sites with 244 PBS sites, 11 RCRA 

sites, 12 TRIS sites, eight CBS sites, three Superfund sites, two MOSF sites and one NPL site. The 

majority of these sites are located in and around the city of Utica and the city of Rome. 

Page G-128 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation Tier 1 Draft EIS

Madison County has 18 contaminated and hazardous material sites with 12 PBS sites, four CBS 

sites and two TRIS sites. The majority of these sites are located in the city of Oneida and the village 

of Canastota. 

 

Onondaga County has 238 contaminated and hazardous material sites, the majority of which are 

located in and around the city of Syracuse. There are 178 PBS sites, 17 RCRA sites, 23 TRIS sites, 17 

CBS sites, two Superfund sites and one MOSF site. 

Cayuga County has 11 contaminated and hazardous material sites, the fewest in the Empire 

Corridor West/Niagara Branch segment including one RCRA site, nine PBS sites and one CBS site. 

The majority of these sites are located in the village of Weedsport. 

Wayne County has 80 contaminated and hazardous material sites, the majority of which are 

located in the town of Savannah, village of Clyde, village of Lyons and the town of Palmyra. There 

are 59 PBS sites, seven RCRA sites, eight TRIS sites, five CBS sites and one MOSF site. 

Monroe County has 373 contaminated and hazardous material sites with 41 RCRA sites, 265 PBS 

sites, 43 TRIS sites, 17 CBS sites, six Superfund sites and one MOSF site. The majority of these sites 

are located in and around the city of Rochester. 

Genesee County has 164 contaminated and hazardous material sites with 148 PBS sites, two RCRA 

sites, eight CBS sites and six TRIS sites. The majority of these sites are located in the town of Bergen 

and the city of Batavia. 

 

Erie County has 447 contaminated and hazardous material sites, the most in the Empire Corridor 

West/Niagara Branch segment. The majority of these sites are located in the city of Buffalo and the 

city of Tonawanda. There are 35 RCRA sites, 334 PBS sites, 54 TRIS sites, 13 CBS sites, 10 

Superfund sites and one MOSF site. 

Niagara County has 91 contaminated and hazardous material sites in the Empire Corridor 

West/Niagara Branch segment with eight RCRA sites, 56 PBS sites, seven CBS sites, 12 TRIS sites, 

five Superfund sites, two NPL sites and one MOSF site. The majority of these sites are located in the 

city of North Tonawanda and the city of Niagara Falls.

14.3 Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch: 125 Study Area

The 125 Study Area follows a more direct route between Rensselaer and Buffalo, which bypasses 

several of the major metropolitan areas and stations sites (Schenectady, Amsterdam, Utica, and 

Rome). The Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch 125 Study Area has a total of 1,347 sites. The 

majority are located in the more urbanized counties in: Erie County (435 sites), Monroe County 

(365 sites), and Onondaga County (239 sites).

 

Albany County has 68 contaminated and hazardous material sites, the majority of which are 

located in the city of Albany. There are 51 PBS sites, 10 RCRA, two TRIS, four CBS, one MOSF site. 

 

Schenectady County has 36 contaminated and hazardous material sites with 34 PBS sites and two 

TRIS sites. The majority of these sites are located in and around the city of Rotterdam.

 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page G-129

New York State Department of Transportation 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation 

Schoharie, Montgomery and Herkimer counties have very few contaminated and hazardous 

material sites. There is a single PBS site in the study area within Schoharie County and only three 

total sites in Montgomery County: two TRIS sites and one PBS site. The study area within 

Herkimer County has a total of four contaminated and hazardous materials sites: three PBS and 

one CBS site. The corridor passes through primarily rural land in these three counties, which likely 

accounts for the low number of contaminated and hazardous materials sites.

Oneida and Madison counties both have 29 contaminated and hazardous material sites. In Oneida 

County, there are 20 PBS sites, three RCRA, two TRIS, two CBS, and two Superfund sites. The 

majority of these sites are located in and around the towns of Clinton and Sherrill. In Madison 

County, there are 23 PBS sites, three TRIS and three CBS sites. The majority of these sites are 

located in and around the cities of Oneida and Canastota.

Onondaga County has 239 contaminated and hazardous material sites, the majority of which are 

located in and around the city of Syracuse. There are 180 PBS sites, 17 RCRA, 22 TRIS, 17 CBS, two 

Superfund sites and one MOSF site.

 

Cayuga County only has a single contaminated and hazardous material site, a PBS site. Along with 

Schoharie County, this has the fewest sites in the Empire Corridor West/Niagara Branch 125 Study 

Area. 

Wayne County has 25 contaminated and hazardous material sites scattered along the corridor. 

There are 23 PBS sites, one TRIS and one Superfund site.

 

Monroe County has 365 contaminated and hazardous material sites with 38 RCRA sites, 262 PBS 

sites, 42 TRIS sites, 16 CBS sites, six Superfund sites and one MOSF site. The majority of these sites 

are located in and around the city of Rochester. 

 

Genesee County has 21 contaminated and hazardous material sites scattered along the corridor, all 

of which are PBS sites.

Erie County has 435 contaminated and hazardous material sites, the most in the Empire Corridor 

West/Niagara Branch 125 Study Area, the majority of which are located in the city of Buffalo and 

the city of Tonawanda. There are 35 RCRA sites, 322 PBS, 53 TRIS, 14 CBS, 10 Superfund sites and 

one MOSF site. 

Niagara County has 91 contaminated and hazardous material sites in the Empire Corridor 

West/Niagara Branch segment with eight RCRA sites, 56 PBS sites, seven CBS sites, 12 TRIS sites, 

five Superfund sites, two NPL sites and one MOSF site. The majority of these sites are located the 

city of North Tonawanda and the city of Niagara Falls.

Page G-130 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation Tier 1 Draft EIS

15. Additional Supporting Exhibits

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page G-131

New York State Department of Transportation 
This page intentionally left blank. 
New York

Connecticut

New York

New Jersey

Hudson River

Hudson Highlands

Esopus_Lloyd

Yonkers

Poughkeepsie

New York Penn Station

HaverstrawBay

LowerHudsonReach

HudsonRiverMile44to56

PoughkeepsieDeepwater

CrotonRiverandBay

PiermontMarsh

ConstitutionMarsh

MoodnaCreek

IonaIslandMarsh

FishkillCreek

WappingerCreek

PelhamBayParkWetlands

PelhamBayParkWetlands

HookMountain

PremiumRiverPineBrookWetlands

§ ̈¦87 § ̈¦84

§ ̈¦287

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦280

§ ̈¦78

§ ̈¦495

B e r g e n B e r g e n

E s s e x E s s e x

U n i o n U n i o n

P a s s a i c P a s s a i c

H u d s o n H u d s o n

M o r r i s M o r r i s

O r a n g e O r a n g e

U l s t e r U l s t e r

R o c k l a n d R o c k l a n d

D u t c h e s s D u t c h e s s

P u t n a m P u t n a m

Q u e e n s Q u e e n s

B r o n x B r o n x

K i n g s K i n g s

N e w Y o r k N e w Y o r k New York

Ramapo

Tuxedo

Cortlandt

Fishkill

Newburgh

Philipstown

Gardiner

Yorktown

Clarkstown

Plattekill

Montgomery

East Fishkill

La Grange

Woodbury

Lloyd

Highlands

Kent

Cornwall Putnam Valley

Greenburgh

New Windsor

Monroe

Stony Point

Wappinger

Haverstraw

Shawangunk

Chester

Mount Pleasant

Ossining

New Castle

Orangetown

Yonkers

Blooming Grove

Marlborough Poughkeepsie

Warwick

Carmel

Hamptonburgh

Crawford

Somers

New Paltz

Beacon

Peekskill

Scarsdale

Rochester

Eastchester

Mount Vernon

Pelham

North Castle

Wallkill

Croton-Harmon

Copyright:© 2013 Esri

Hudson River

Hudson River

New York

Connecticut

Putnam

Acres

Hudson

Rhinecliff

Poughkeepsie

Albany-Rensselaer

§ ̈¦87

§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦787

§ ̈¦890

Estates District

Columbia - Greene North

Esopus_Lloyd

Ulster-North

Catskill - Olana

Catskill - Olana

StockportCreekandFlats

RamshornMarsh

NorthandSouthTivoliBays

KingstonDeepwaterHabitat

TheFlats

EsopusEstuary

PoughkeepsieDeepwater

RogersIsland

GermantownClermontFlats

ShadandSchermerhornIslands

RondoutCreek

VosburghSwampandMiddleGroundFlats

PapscaneeMarshandCreek

InbochtBayandDuckCove

EsopusMeadows

VanderburghCoveandShallow

CatskillCreek

RoeliffJansenKill

CoxsackieIslandBackwater

CoxsackieCreek

NormansKill

HannacroixCreek

A l b a n y A l b a n y

D u t c h e s s D u t c h e s s

C o l u m b i a C o l u m b i a

U l s t e r U l s t e r

G r e e n e G r e e n e

Cairo

Catskill

Ghent

Milan

Schodack

Saugerties

Colonie

Lloyd

Stanford

Westerlo

Esopus

Clinton

Gallatin

Guilderland

Washington

Coeymans

Ulster

Claverack

Bethlehem

Chatham

New Scotland

Athens

Red Hook

Taghkanic

Berne

Greenville

Livingston

Hyde Park

Ancram

Rhinebeck

Coxsackie

New Baltimore

Nassau

Hunter

Kinderhook

Pine Plains

Dover

Brunswick

Copake

Knox

New Paltz Pleasant Valley

Clermont

Union Vale

Sand Lake

Hurley

La Grange

East Greenbush

Albany

Stuyvesant

Amenia

Greenport

Troy

Stockport

Northeast

Poestenkill

Austerlitz

North Greenbush

Germantown

Kingston

Poughkeepsie

Durham

Princetown

Plattekill

Jewett

Hudson

Rensselaer

Cohoes

Watervliet

Copyright:© 2013 Esri

PENNSYLVANIA

ONTARIO

(CANADA)

NEW YORK

6 5 4 3

1

2

KEY MAP

0 2.5 5 10

Miles

MAP 1 MAP 2

I Tier 1 EIS

High Speed Rail

Empire Corridor Program

Coastal Resources Map

Source: New York State GIS

Amtrak Station

Existing Empire Corridor

Alternative 125 Corridor

Coastal Boundary

Coastal Habitat

Area of Scenic Significance

Alt. 125 as shown is a potential corridor used to analyze the potential operating characteristics, environmental impacts and cost for this speed (125 mph) threshold. *

*

Exhibit G-18
Hudson River

Amsterdam

Schenectady

Albany-Rensselaer

§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦88

§ ̈¦87

§ ̈¦787

§ ̈¦890

PapscaneeMarshandCreek

NormansKill

F u l t o n F u l t o n

O t s e g o O t s e g o

S a r a t o g a S a r a t o g a H e r k i m e r H e r k i m e r

A l b a n y A l b a n y

M o n t g o m e r y M o n t g o m e r y

S c h o h a r i e S c h o h a r i e

S c h e n e c t a d y S c h e n e c t a d y

R e n s s e l a e r R e n s s e l a e r

Root

Glen

Otsego

Knox

Colonie

Florida

Minden

Mayfield

Galway

Stark

Duanesburg

Greenfield

Glenville

Malta

Milton

Berne

Sharon

Warren

Palatine

Fairfield Caroga

Oppenheim

Seward

Perth

Hartwick

Carlisle

Ephratah

Wright

Mohawk

Wilton

Springfield

Stratford

Providence

Bleecker

Danube

Westford

Ballston

Salisbury

Columbia

Herkimer

Exeter

Richfield

Cobleskill

Roseboom

Decatur

Fulton

Newport

Johnstown

Middlefield

Guilderland

Clifton Park

Charleston

Charlton

Broadalbin

Canajoharie

Rotterdam

Manheim

Stillwater

Albany

Cherry Valley

Schuyler

Schoharie

Middleburgh

New Scotland

Amsterdam

German Flatts

Bethlehem

Little Falls

Princetown

Richmondville

Worcester

Esperance

Saratoga Springs

Niskayuna

St Johnsville

Summit

Edinburg

Northampton

Schenectady

Waterford

Cohoes

Gloversville

Milford Maryland

Winfield

Copyright:© 2013 Esri

Oneida

Lake

Rome

Utica

Syracuse § ̈¦90

§ ̈¦81

§ ̈¦690

§ ̈¦481

§ ̈¦790

O n e i d a O n e i d a

O n o n d a g a O n o n d a g a

M a d i s o n M a d i s o n

O s w e g o O s w e g o

C a y u g a C a y u g a

H e r k i m e r H e r k i m e r

O t s e g o O t s e g o

C o r t l a n d C o r t l a n d

Vienna

Rome

Clay

Verona

Sullivan

Constantia

Niles

Pompey

Lee

Eaton

Cicero

Brookfield

Lysander

Fabius

Manlius

Nelson

Floyd

Onondaga Paris

Lenox

Trenton

Marcy

Tully

Vernon

Madison

Granby

Otisco

Elbridge

Fenner

La Fayette

Lebanon Hamilton

Kirkland

Camillus

Marshall

Schroeppel

Van Buren

Western

Russia

Lincoln

Litchfield

Plainfield

Hastings

Ira

Annsville

Camden

Sangerfield

Steuben

Scott

Cazenovia

De Witt

Spafford

Skaneateles

Frankfort

Deerfield

Marcellus

Augusta

Exeter

Schuyler

Utica

Oneida

Westmoreland

Winfield

Syracuse

Georgetown

Stockbridge

DeRuyter

Salina

Smithfield

West Monroe

Whitestown

Cuyler

Bridgewater

Volney

New Hartford

Cato

Owasco

Sennett

Geddes

Richfield

Remsen

Columbia

Palermo

Edmeston

Fulton

Sherrill

Amboy

Copyright:© 2013 Esri

PENNSYLVANIA

ONTARIO

(CANADA)

NEW YORK

6 5 4 3

1

2

KEY MAP

MAP 4

MAP 3

I 0 5 10 2.5

Miles

Tier 1 EIS

High Speed Rail

Empire Corridor Program

Coastal Resources Map

Source: New York State GIS

Amtrak Station

Existing Empire Corridor

Alternative 125 Corridor

Coastal Boundary

Coastal Habitat

Area of Scenic Significance

Alt. 125 as shown is a potential corridor used to analyze the potential operating characteristics, environmental impacts and cost for this speed (125 mph) threshold. *

*

Exhibit G-18
Lake

Ontario

ra

s

0 ft of the existing rail.

Rochester

§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦390

§ ̈¦490 § ̈¦590

BraddockBayandSalmonCreek

IrondequoitBayandCreek

PortBay

LakeShoreMarshes

SterlingCreekandWetlands

GeneseeRiver

LakeShoreMarshes

LakeShoreMarshes

LakeShoreMarshes EastBay

LakeShoreMarshes

SodusBay SalmonCreek

SodusBay

SandyCreek

SlaterCreek

W a y n e W a y n e

M o n r o e M o n r o e

O n t a r i o O n t a r i o

C a y u g a C a y u g a

S e n e c a S e n e c a

L i v i n g s t o n L i v i n g s t o n

Ira

Sodus

Galen

Phelps

Chili

Fayette

Cato

Tyre

Greece

Arcadia

Parma

Rose

Lima

Lyons

Butler

Victor

Sterling

Rush

Ogden

Wolcott

Hannibal

Riga

Mendon

Victory

York

Penfield

Seneca

Ontario

Macedon

Marion

Webster

Perinton Palmyra

Junius

Henrietta

Hopewell

Aurelius

Conquest

Sennett

Walworth

Caledonia

Rochester

Livonia Gorham

Fleming

Geneseo Bristol

Hamlin

Wheatland

Gates

Throop

Oswego

Niles

Avon

Huron

Canandaigua

Savannah

Farmington

Brutus

Manchester

Williamson

Owasco

Mentz

Pittsford

Waterloo

Springport

Seneca Falls

East Bloomfield

Richmond

Brighton

Montezuma

West Bloomfield

Geneva

Scipio

Clarkson

Auburn

Lysander

Irondequoit

Sweden

East Rochester

Copyright:© 2013 Esri

Ontario

(Canada)

New York

(United States)

Lake

Erie

Lake

Ontario

Lake

Ontario

Buffalo-Depew

Niagara Falls

Buffalo-Exchange Street

§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦190 § ̈¦490

§ ̈¦290

TifftFarmNaturePreserve

SandyCreek TuscaroraBayMarsh

TimesBeachDikedDisposalSite

BraddockBayandSalmonCreek

GrandIslandTributaries

StrawberryIslandMotorIslandShallows

GrandIslandTributariesGrandIslandTributaries

SmokeCreekShoals

E r i e E r i e

N i a g a r a N i a g a r a

G e n e s e e G e n e s e e

O r l e a n s O r l e a n s

W y o m i n g W y o m i n g

M o n r o e M o n r o e

L i v i n g s t o n L i v i n g s t o n

E r i e E r i e

York

Barre Royalton

Elba

Riga

Darien

Batavia

Wilson

Buffalo

Elma

Shelby

Amherst

Hartland

Attica

Clarence

Le Roy

Alabama

Alden

Hamlin

Newstead

Porter

Newfane

Byron

Ridgeway Gaines

Bennington

Cambria

Pavilion

Murray

Bethany

Sweden

Pembroke

Marilla

Stafford

Lancaster

Bergen

Clarkson

Alexander

Clarendon

Carlton

Perry

Yates

Kendall

Ogden

Caledonia

Covington

Aurora Wales Sheldon Leicester

Somerset

Warsaw

Lockport

Lewiston Albion

Middlebury

Wheatfield Oakfield

Pendleton

Grand Island

Hamburg

Cheektowaga

Orchard Park

Tonawanda

West Seneca

Wheatland

Niagara Falls

Niagara

Orangeville

Lackawanna

Copyright:© 2013 Esri

PENNSYLVANIA

ONTARIO

(CANADA)

NEW YORK

6 5 4 3

1

2

KEY MAP

I 0 5 10 2.5

Miles

Tier 1 EIS

High Speed Rail

Empire Corridor Program

MAP 6

MAP 5

Source: New York State GIS

Amtrak Station

Existing Empire Corridor

Alternative 125 Corridor

Coastal Boundary

Coastal Habitat

Area of Scenic Significance

Coastal Resources Map

Alt. 125 as shown is a potential corridor used to analyze the potential operating characteristics, environmental impacts and cost for this speed (125 mph) threshold.

*

*

Exhibit G-18
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation 

Exhibit G-19—Federally & State Endangered-Threatened Species Occurrences in the 90/110 

Study Area

County

# Endangered 

and 

Threatened 

Species

Species Names (Listing) (Probability of Occurrence)

Federal State

New York 1 4 Shortnose Sturgeon(FE/SE)(H), Atlantic Sturgeon (FE) (H), Peregrine 

Falcon(SE)(H), Saltmarsh Bulrush(SE)(L), Bluegrass(SE)(U)

Bronx 1 6

Shortnose Sturgeon(FE/SE)(H), Atlantic Sturgeon (FE) (H), Narrow-leaved 

Sedge(SE)(M), Schweinitz’s Sedge(ST)(H), Heartleaf Plantain(ST)(H), Yellow 

Giant-hyssop(ST)(M), Woodland Agrimony(ST)(M)

Westchester 3 20

Shortnose Sturgeon(FE/SE)(H), Atlantic Sturgeon (FE) (H), Indiana 

Bat(FE/SE)(M), Bog Turtle(FT/SE)(M), Peregrine Falcon(SE)(H), Short-eared 

Owl(SE)(M), Reflexed Sedge(SE)(M), Small- flowered Tick-trefoil(SE)(M), 

Saltmarsh Bulrush(SE)(L), Eastern Mud Turtle(SE)(L), Puttyroot(SE)(U), 

Rattlebox(SE)(U), Virginia False Gromwell(SE)(U), Hooker’s Orchid(SE)(U), 

Torrey’s Mountain-mint(SE)(U), Bald Eagle(ST)(H), Fence Lizard(ST)(H), 

Northern Harrier(ST)(M), Shrubby St. John’s-wort(ST)(M), Eastern 

Grasswort(ST)(M), Globe-fruited Ludwigia(ST)(U)

Rockland 4 9

Shortnose Sturgeon(FE/SE)(H), Atlantic Sturgeon (FE) (H), Indiana 

Bat(FE/SE)(M), Bog Turtle(FT/SE)(M), Small Whorled Pogonia(FT/SE)(L), 

Peregrine Falcon(SE)(H), Bald Eagle(ST)(H), Spongy Arrowhead(ST)(H), 

Saltmarsh Aster(ST)(H), Fence Lizard(ST)(H)

Putnam 3 17

Shortnose Sturgeon(FE/SE)(H), Atlantic Sturgeon (FE) (H), Indiana 

Bat(FE/SE)(M), Bog Turtle(FT/SE)(M), Peregrine Falcon(SE)(H), 

Gypsywort(SE)(M), Water Pigmyweed(SE)(L), Large Twayblade(SE)(L), Slender 

Marsh-pink(SE)(U), Bald Eagle(ST)(H), Least Bittern(ST)(H), Smooth Burmarigold(ST)(H), Long’s Bittercress(ST)(H), Spongy Arrowhead(ST)(H), 

Saltmarsh Aster(ST)(H), Fence Lizard(ST)(H), Clustered Sedge(ST)(M), Violet 

Wood-sorrel(ST)(M)

Orange 5 12

Shortnose Sturgeon(FE/SE)(H), Atlantic Sturgeon (FE) (H), Indiana 

Bat(FE/SE)(M), Dwarf Wedge-mussel(FE/SE)(L), Bog Turtle(FT/SE)(M), Small 

Whorled Pogonia(FT/SE)(L), Peregrine Falcon(SE)(H), Rough Avens(SE)(M), 

Saltmarsh Bulrush(SE)(L), Bald Eagle(ST)(H), Spongy Arrowhead(ST)(H), Fence 

Lizard(ST)(H), Marsh Straw Sedge(ST)(M)

Dutchess 4 27

Shortnose Sturgeon(FE/SE)(H), Atlantic Sturgeon (FE) (H), Indiana 

Bat(FE/SE)(M), Dwarf Wedge-mussel(FE/SE)(L), Bog Turtle(FT/SE)(M), 

Peregrine Falcon(SE)(H), Hudson River Water-nymph(SE)(H), Estuary Beggarticks(SE)(M), Drummond’s Rock-cress(SE)(M), Blunt-lobe Grape Fern(SE)(M), 

Narrow-leaved Sedge(SE)(M), Northern Tansy-mustard(SE)(M), Shining 

Bedstraw(SE)(M), American Waterwort(SE)(L), Bald Eagle(ST)(H), Least 

Bittern(ST)(H), Smooth Bur-marigold(ST)(H), Davis’ Sedge(ST)(H), Golden 

Club(ST)(H), Heartleaf Plantain(ST)(H), Swamp Cottonwood(ST)(H), Spongy 

Arrowhead(ST)(H), Pied-billed Grebe(ST)(M), King Rail(ST)(M), Woodland 

Agrimony(ST)(M), Cat-tail Sedge(ST)(M), Marsh Horsetail(ST)(M), Blanding’s 

Turtle(ST)(L)

Ulster 5 15

Shortnose Sturgeon(FE/SE)(H), Atlantic Sturgeon (FE) (H), Indiana 

Bat(FE/SE)(M), Bog Turtle(FT/SE)(M), Small Whorled Pogonia(FT/SE)(L), 

Northern Wild Monkshood(FT/ST)(L), Hudson River Water-nymph(SE)(H), 

Estuary Beggar-ticks(SE)(M), Water Pigmyweed(SE)(L), American 

Page G-136 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation Tier 1 Draft EIS

Exhibit G-19—Federally & State Endangered-Threatened Species Occurrences in the 90/110 

Study Area

County

# Endangered 

and 

Threatened 

Species

Species Names (Listing) (Probability of Occurrence)

Federal State

Waterwort(SE)(L), Virginia Snakeroot(SE)(U), Riverbank Quillwort(SE)(U), Bald 

Eagle(ST)(H), Heartleaf Plantain(ST)(H), Fernald’s Sedge(ST)(M), Douglas’ 

Knotweed(ST)(U)

Columbia 3 16

Shortnose Sturgeon(FE/SE)(H), Atlantic Sturgeon (FE) (H), Indiana 

Bat(FE/SE)(M), Bog Turtle(FT/SE)(M), Hudson River Water-nymph(SE)(H), 

Estuary Beggar-ticks(SE)(M), American Waterwort(SE)(L), Bald Eagle(ST)(H), 

Least Bittern(ST)(H), Smooth Bur-marigold(ST)(H), Long’s Bittercress(ST)(H), 

Davis’ Sedge(ST)(H), Golden Club(ST)(H), Heartleaf Plantain(ST)(H), Spongy 

Arrowhead(ST)(H), Shrubby St. John’s-wort(ST)(M), Swamp Lousewort(ST)(M)

Greene 2 12

Shortnose Sturgeon(FE/SE)(H), Atlantic Sturgeon (FE) (H), Indiana 

Bat(FE/SE)(M), Hudson River Water-nymph(SE)(H), Estuary Beggarticks(SE)(M), American Waterwort(SE)(L), Navel-fruited Corn-salad(SE)(U), Bald 

Eagle(ST)(H), Least Bittern(ST)(H), Smooth Bur-marigold(ST)(H), Davis’ 

Sedge(ST)(H), Golden Club(ST)(H), Heartleaf Plantain(ST)(H)

Rensselaer 2 6

Shortnose Sturgeon(FE/SE)(H), Atlantic Sturgeon (FE) (H), Indiana 

Bat(FE/SE)(M), Estuary Beggar-ticks(SE)(M), American Waterwort(SE)(L), Bald 

Eagle(ST)(H), Golden Club(ST)(H)

Albany 4 19

Shortnose Sturgeon(FE/SE)(H), Atlantic Sturgeon (FE) (H), Karner 

Blue(FE/SE)(H), Indiana Bat(FE/SE)(M), Bog Turtle(FT/SE)(M), Peregrine 

Falcon(SE)(H), Estuary Beggar-ticks(SE)(M), Persius Duskywing(SE)(L), 

American Waterwort(SE)(L), Small’s Knotweed(SE)(L), Virginia False 

Gromwell(SE)(U), Bald Eagle(ST)(H), Frosted Elfin(ST)(H), Davis’ Sedge(ST)(H), 

Carey’s Smartweed(ST)(H), Yellow Giant-hyssop(ST)(M), Troublesome 

Hedge(ST)(M), False Hop Sedge(ST)(M), Little-leaf Tick-trefoil(ST)(M), Mockpennyroyal(ST)(L)

Schenectady 2 4 Karner Blue(FE/SE)(H), Indiana Bat(FE/SE)(M), Side-oats Grama(SE)(H), Carey’s 

Smartweed(ST)(H)

Montgomery 0 1 Timber Rattlesnake(ST)(M)

Herkimer 0 0

Oneida 1 9

Indiana Bat(FE/SE)(M), Cypress-knee Sedge(SE)(M), Frank’s Sedge(SE)(M), 

Sparse-flowered Sedge(SE)(U), Least Bittern(ST)(H), Schweinitz’s Sedge(ST)(H), 

Sedge Wren(ST)(M), Pied-billed Grebe(ST)(M), Creeping Sedge(ST)(M)

Madison 3 5

Indiana Bat(FE/SE)(M), Chittenango Ovate Amber Snail(FT/SE)(L)American 

Hart’s-tongue Fern(FT/ST)(L), Northern Harrier(ST)(M), Little-leaf Ticktrefoil(ST)(M)

Onondaga 5 11

Indiana Bat(FE/SE)(M), Bog Turtle(FT/SE)(M), Small Whorled 

Pogonia(FT/SE)(L), American Hart’s-tongue Fern(FT/ST)(L), , Eastern Prairie 

Fringed Orchid(FT/ST)(L), Eastern Massasauga(SE)(M), Straight-leaf 

Pondweed(SE)(L), Northern Wild Comfrey(SE)(U), Bald Eagle(ST)(H), Red 

Pigweed(ST)(M), Little-leaf Tick-trefoil(ST)(M)

Cayuga 2 7 Indiana Bat(FE/SE)(M), Bog Turtle(FT/SE)(M), Short-eared Owl(SE)(M), Black 

Tern(SE)(L), Bald Eagle(ST)(H), Pied-billed Grebe(ST)(M), Sartwell’s 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page G-137

New York State Department of Transportation 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation 

Exhibit G-19—Federally & State Endangered-Threatened Species Occurrences in the 90/110 

Study Area

County

# Endangered 

and 

Threatened 

Species

Species Names (Listing) (Probability of Occurrence)

Federal State

Sedge(ST)(M)

Wayne 3 12

Indiana Bat(FE/SE)(M), Bog Turtle(FT/SE)(M), Eastern Prairie Fringed 

Orchid(FT/ST)(L), Short-eared Owl(SE)(M), Spreading Chervil(SE)(M), Black 

Tern(SE)(L), Marsh Valerian(SE)(L), Bald Eagle(ST)(H), Big Shellbark 

Hickory(ST)(H), Pied-billed Grebe(ST)(M), Yellow Giant-hyssop(ST)(M), Twinleaf(ST)(M)

Monroe 1 7

Bog Turtle(FT/SE)(M), Peregrine Falcon(SE)(H), Log Fern(SE)(M), Sweetscented Indian-plantain(SE)(M), Pied-billed Grebe(ST)(M), Northern Bog 

Aster(ST)(M), Green Gentian(ST)(L),

Genesee 3 7

Bog Turtle(FT/SE)(M), Houghton’s Goldenrod(FT/ST)(L), Eastern Prairie Fringed 

Orchid(FT/ST)(L), Log Fern(SE)(M), Eastern Massasauga(SE)(M), Bald 

Eagle(ST)(H), Woodland Agrimony(ST)(M), 

Erie 0 7

Peregrine Falcon(SE)(H), Four-flowered Loosestrife(SE)(M), Northern 

Harrier(ST)(M), Lake Sturgeon(ST)(M), Marsh Horsetail(ST)(M), Wiry Panic 

Grass(ST)(M), Stiff-leaf Goldenrod(ST)(L)

Niagara 1 5 Eastern Prairie Fringed Orchid(FT/ST)(L), Puttyroot(SE)(U), Bald Eagle(ST)(H), 

Northern Harrier(ST)(M), Stiff-leaf Goldenrod(ST)(L)

Sources: U.S. FWS, 2011; NYSDEC, 2011 

Note: FE=Federally Endangered; FT=Federally Threatened; SE=State Endangered; ST=State Threatened

H, M, L= High, Medium or Low probability of occurrence

The 90/110 Study Area is used for analysis of Alternatives 90A, 90B, and 110 and consists of the existing 465-mile long Empire Corridor 

alignment. The study area width is defined as being within a 1⁄2 mile of the corridor centerline. 

Page G-138 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation Tier 1 Draft EIS

Exhibit G-20—Federally and State Endangered-Threatened Species Occurrences in the 125 

Study Area

County

# Endangered 

and 

Threatened 

Species

Species Names (Listing) (Probability of Occurrence)

Federal State

New York 1 4 Shortnose Sturgeon(FE/SE)(H), Atlantic Sturgeon (FE) (H), Peregrine 

Falcon(SE)(H), Saltmarsh Bulrush(SE)(L), Bluegrass(SE)(U)

Bronx 1 6

Shortnose Sturgeon(FE/SE)(H), Atlantic Sturgeon (FE) (H), Narrow-leaved 

Sedge(SE)(M), Schweinitz’s Sedge(ST)(H), Heartleaf Plantain(ST)(H), Yellow 

Giant-hyssop(ST)(M), Woodland Agrimony(ST)(M)

Westchester 3 20

Shortnose Sturgeon(FE/SE)(H), Atlantic Sturgeon (FE) (H), Indiana 

Bat(FE/SE)(M), Bog Turtle(FT/SE)(M), Peregrine Falcon(SE)(H), Short-eared 

Owl(SE)(M), Reflexed Sedge(SE)(M), Small- flowered Tick-trefoil(SE)(M), 

Saltmarsh Bulrush(SE)(L), Eastern Mud Turtle(SE)(L), Puttyroot(SE)(U), 

Rattlebox(SE)(U), Virginia False Gromwell(SE)(U), Hooker’s Orchid(SE)(U), 

Torrey’s Mountain-mint(SE)(U), Bald Eagle(ST)(H), Fence Lizard(ST)(H), 

Northern Harrier(ST)(M), Shrubby St. John’s-wort(ST)(M), Eastern 

Grasswort(ST)(M), Globe-fruited Ludwigia(ST)(U)

Rockland 4 9

Shortnose Sturgeon(FE/SE)(H), Atlantic Sturgeon (FE) (H), Indiana 

Bat(FE/SE)(M), Bog Turtle(FT/SE)(M), Small Whorled Pogonia(FT/SE)(L), 

Peregrine Falcon(SE)(H), Bald Eagle(ST)(H), Spongy Arrowhead(ST)(H), 

Saltmarsh Aster(ST)(H), Fence Lizard(ST)(H)

Putnam 3 17

Shortnose Sturgeon(FE/SE)(H), Atlantic Sturgeon (FE) (H), Indiana 

Bat(FE/SE)(M), Bog Turtle(FT/SE)(M), Peregrine Falcon(SE)(H), 

Gypsywort(SE)(M), Water Pigmyweed(SE)(L), Large Twayblade(SE)(L), Slender 

Marsh-pink(SE)(U), Bald Eagle(ST)(H), Least Bittern(ST)(H), Smooth Burmarigold(ST)(H), Long’s Bittercress(ST)(H), Spongy Arrowhead(ST)(H), 

Saltmarsh Aster(ST)(H), Fence Lizard(ST)(H), Clustered Sedge(ST)(M), Violet 

Wood-sorrel(ST)(M)

Orange 5 12

Shortnose Sturgeon(FE/SE)(H), Atlantic Sturgeon (FE) (H), Indiana 

Bat(FE/SE)(M), Dwarf Wedge-mussel(FE/SE)(L), Bog Turtle(FT/SE)(M), Small 

Whorled Pogonia(FT/SE)(L), Peregrine Falcon(SE)(H), Rough Avens(SE)(M), 

Saltmarsh Bulrush(SE)(L), Bald Eagle(ST)(H), Spongy Arrowhead(ST)(H), Fence 

Lizard(ST)(H), Marsh Straw Sedge(ST)(M)

Dutchess 4 27

Shortnose Sturgeon(FE/SE)(H), Atlantic Sturgeon (FE) (H), Indiana 

Bat(FE/SE)(M), Dwarf Wedge-mussel(FE/SE)(L), Bog Turtle(FT/SE)(M), 

Peregrine Falcon(SE)(H), Hudson River Water-nymph(SE)(H), Estuary Beggarticks(SE)(M), Drummond’s Rock-cress(SE)(M), Blunt-lobe Grape Fern(SE)(M), 

Narrow-leaved Sedge(SE)(M), Northern Tansy-mustard(SE)(M), Shining 

Bedstraw(SE)(M), American Waterwort(SE)(L), Bald Eagle(ST)(H), Least 

Bittern(ST)(H), Smooth Bur-marigold(ST)(H), Davis’ Sedge(ST)(H), Golden 

Club(ST)(H), Heartleaf Plantain(ST)(H), Swamp Cottonwood(ST)(H), Spongy 

Arrowhead(ST)(H), Pied-billed Grebe(ST)(M), King Rail(ST)(M), Woodland 

Agrimony(ST)(M), Cat-tail Sedge(ST)(M), Marsh Horsetail(ST)(M), Blanding’s 

Turtle(ST)(L)

Ulster 5 15

Shortnose Sturgeon(FE/SE)(H), Atlantic Sturgeon (FE) (H), Indiana 

Bat(FE/SE)(M), Bog Turtle(FT/SE)(M), Small Whorled Pogonia(FT/SE)(L), 

Northern Wild Monkshood(FT/ST)(L), Hudson River Water-nymph(SE)(H), 

Estuary Beggar-ticks(SE)(M), Water Pigmyweed(SE)(L), American 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page G-139

New York State Department of Transportation 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation 

Exhibit G-20—Federally and State Endangered-Threatened Species Occurrences in the 125 

Study Area

County

# Endangered 

and 

Threatened 

Species

Species Names (Listing) (Probability of Occurrence)

Federal State

Waterwort(SE)(L), Virginia Snakeroot(SE)(U), Riverbank Quillwort(SE)(U), Bald 

Eagle(ST)(H), Heartleaf Plantain(ST)(H), Fernald’s Sedge(ST)(M), Douglas’ 

Knotweed(ST)(U)

Columbia 3 16

Shortnose Sturgeon(FE/SE)(H), Atlantic Sturgeon (FE) (H), Indiana 

Bat(FE/SE)(M), Bog Turtle(FT/SE)(M), Hudson River Water-nymph(SE)(H), 

Estuary Beggar-ticks(SE)(M), American Waterwort(SE)(L), Bald Eagle(ST)(H), 

Least Bittern(ST)(H), Smooth Bur-marigold(ST)(H), Long’s Bittercress(ST)(H), 

Davis’ Sedge(ST)(H), Golden Club(ST)(H), Heartleaf Plantain(ST)(H), Spongy 

Arrowhead(ST)(H), Shrubby St. John’s-wort(ST)(M), Swamp Lousewort(ST)(M)

Greene 2 12

Shortnose Sturgeon(FE/SE)(H), Atlantic Sturgeon (FE) (H), Indiana 

Bat(FE/SE)(M), Hudson River Water-nymph(SE)(H), Estuary Beggarticks(SE)(M), American Waterwort(SE)(L), Navel-fruited Corn-salad(SE)(U), Bald 

Eagle(ST)(H), Least Bittern(ST)(H), Smooth Bur-marigold(ST)(H), Davis’ 

Sedge(ST)(H), Golden Club(ST)(H), Heartleaf Plantain(ST)(H)

Rensselaer 2 6

Shortnose Sturgeon(FE/SE)(H), Atlantic Sturgeon (FE) (H), Indiana 

Bat(FE/SE)(M), Estuary Beggar-ticks(SE)(M), American Waterwort(SE)(L), Bald 

Eagle(ST)(H), Golden Club(ST)(H)

Albany 4 23

Shortnose Sturgeon(FE/SE)(H), Atlantic Sturgeon (FE) (H), Karner 

Blue(FE/SE)(H), Persius Duskywing (SE) (L), Frosted Elfin (ST) (H), Indiana 

Bat(FE/SE)(M), Bog Turtle(FT/SE)(M), Peregrine Falcon(SE)(H), Bald Eagle (ST) 

(H), Yellow Giant-hyssop (ST) (M), Woodland Agrimony (ST) (M), Estuary 

Beggar-ticks (SE) (M), Green Rock-cress (ST) (U), Clustered Sedge (ST) (M), 

Troublesome Sedge (ST) (M), False Hop Sedge (ST) (M), Little-leaf Tick-trefoil 

(ST) (M), American Waterwort (SE) (L), Mock-pennyroyal (ST) (L), Virginia False 

Gromwell (SE) (U), Carey's Smartweed (ST) (H), Small's Knotweed (SE) (L), Whip 

Nutrush (ST) (L), Nodding Pogonia (ST) (H), , 

Schoharie 1 1 Indiana Bat (SE/FE) (M)

Schenectady 2 3 Karner Blue(FE/SE)(H), Indiana Bat(FE/SE)(M), Side-oats Grama(SE)(H)

Montgomery 0 0

Herkimer 0 1 Short-eared Owl (SE) (M)

Oneida 1 6 Indiana Bat(FE/SE)(M), Cypress-knee Sedge(SE)(M), Frank’s Sedge(SE)(M), 

Sparse-flowered Sedge(SE)(U), Least Bittern(ST)(H), Pied-billed Grebe(ST)(M)

Madison 3 8

Indiana Bat(FE/SE)(M), Chittenango Ovate Amber Snail(FT/SE)(L)American 

Hart’s-tongue Fern(FT/ST)(L), Northern Harrier(ST)(M), Little-leaf Ticktrefoil(ST)(M), Schweinitz's Sedge (ST) (H), Golden-seal (ST) (H), Marsh Arrowgrass (ST) (U)

Onondaga 5 11

Indiana Bat(FE/SE)(M), Bog Turtle(FT/SE)(M), Small Whorled 

Pogonia(FT/SE)(L), American Hart’s-tongue Fern(FT/ST)(L), Eastern Prairie 

Fringed Orchid(FT/ST)(L), Eastern Massasauga(SE)(M), Straight-leaf 

Pondweed(SE)(L), Northern Wild Comfrey(SE)(U), Bald Eagle(ST)(H), Red 

Page G-140 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation Tier 1 Draft EIS

Exhibit G-20—Federally and State Endangered-Threatened Species Occurrences in the 125 

Study Area

County

# Endangered 

and 

Threatened 

Species

Species Names (Listing) (Probability of Occurrence)

Federal State

Pigweed(ST)(M), Little-leaf Tick-trefoil(ST)(M)

Cayuga 2 11

Indiana Bat(FE/SE)(M), Bog Turtle(FT/SE)(M), Short-eared Owl(SE)(M), Black 

Tern(SE)(L), Bald Eagle(ST)(H), Pied-billed Grebe(ST)(M), , Button-bush Dodder 

(SE) (U), Spiny water-nymph (SE) (U), Hooker's Orchid (SE) (U), Northern Bog 

Aster (ST) (M), Nodding Pogonia (ST) (H)

Wayne 3 11

Indiana Bat(FE/SE)(M), Bog Turtle(FT/SE)(M), Eastern Prairie Fringed 

Orchid(FT/ST)(L), Short-eared Owl(SE)(M), Spreading Chervil(SE)(M), Black 

Tern(SE)(L), Bald Eagle(ST)(H), Big Shellbark Hickory(ST)(H), Pied-billed 

Grebe(ST)(M), Yellow Giant-hyssop(ST)(M), Twin-leaf(ST)(M)

Monroe 1 8

Bog Turtle(FT/SE)(M), Peregrine Falcon(SE)(H), Log Fern(SE)(M), Sweetscented Indian-plantain(SE)(M), Pied-billed Grebe(ST)(M), Northern Bog 

Aster(ST)(M), Green Gentian(ST)(L), Purple bluets (SE) (U)

Genesee 3 22

Houghton's Goldenrod (ST/ FT) (L ), Eastern Prairie Fringed Orchid (ST/ FT) (L), 

Bog Turtle (SE/FT) (M), Northern Harrier (ST) (M), Bald Eagle (ST) (H), 

Woodland Agrimony (ST) (M), Dragon's Mouth Orchid (ST) (H), Mountain Death 

Camas (ST) (H), Calypso (SE) (U), Northern Bog Sedge (SE) (H), Small White 

Ladyslipper (SE) (H), Northern Wild Comfrey (SE) (U), Log Fern (SE) (M), 

Creeping Juniper (SE) (H), Ohio Goldenrod (ST) (H), Wiry Panic Grass (ST) (M), 

Whorled Mountain-mint (ST) (L), Deer's Hair Sedge (ST) (H), Marsh Arrow-grass 

(ST) (U), Marsh Valerian (SE) (L), Queen Snake (SE) (H), Eastern Massasauga (SE) 

(M)

Erie 0 7

Peregrine Falcon(SE)(H), Four-flowered Loosestrife(SE)(M), Northern 

Harrier(ST)(M), Lake Sturgeon(ST)(M), Marsh Horsetail(ST)(M), Upland

Sandpiper (ST) (M), Pied-billed Grebe (ST) (M)

Niagara 1 4 Eastern Prairie Fringed Orchid(FT/ST)(L), Puttyroot(SE)(U), Bald Eagle(ST)(H), 

Northern Harrier(ST)(M)

Sources: U.S. FWS, 2011; NYSDEC, 2011 

Note: FE=Federally Endangered; FT=Federally Threatened; SE=State Endangered; ST=State Threatened

H, M, L= High, Medium or Low probability of occurrence

The 125 Study Area is used for analysis of Alternative 125 and consists of portions of the existing Empire Corridor and new alignment 

and is 451 miles long. The study area width is defined as being within a 1⁄2 mile of the corridor centerline. 

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page G-141

New York State Department of Transportation 
Tier 1 Draft EIS Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation 

Exhibit G-21—Essential Fish Habitat in the Study Area

EFH Species/Stages County of Potential Occurrence*

Common 

Name 

Scientific 

Name

Life Stage New 

York Bronx Westchester Rockland Putnam Orange Dutchess Ulster Columbia Greene

Red Hake

Urophycis 

chuss

Larvae x x x x x x

Juveniles x x x x x x

Adults x x x x x x

Winter 

Flounder

Pseudopleu

ronectes

americanus

Eggs x x x x x x

Larvae x x x x x x

Juveniles x x x x x x

Adults x x x x x x

Spawnin

g Adults x x x x x x

Windowpane 

Flounder

Scopthalmu

s aquosus

Eggs x x x x x x

Larvae x x x x x x

Juveniles x x x x x x

Adults x x x x x x

Spawnin

g Adults x x x x x x

Atlantic Sea 

Herring

Clupea 

harengus

Larvae x x x x x x

Juveniles x x x x x x

Adults x x x x x x

Bluefish

Pomatomus 

saltatrix

Juveniles x x x x x x

Adults x x x x x x

Atlantic 

butterfish

Peprilus 

triacanthus

Larvae x x

Juveniles x x x x

Adults x x x x

Atlantic 

mackerel

Scomber 

scombrus

Juveniles x x

Adults

x x

Summer 

flounder

Paralicthys 

dentatus

Larvae x x x x x x x x x x

Juveniles x x x x x x

Adults x x x x x x

Scup

Stenotomus 

chrysops

Eggs x x

Larvae x x

Juveniles x x

Adults x x

Black sea 

bass

Centroprist

us striata

Juveniles x x x x x x

Adults

x x x x x x

Page G-142 High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program

New York State Department of Transportation
Appendix G – Existing Conditions Supporting Documentation Tier 1 Draft EIS

Exhibit G-21—Essential Fish Habitat in the Study Area

EFH Species/Stages County of Potential Occurrence*

Common 

Name 

Scientific 

Name

Life Stage New 

York Bronx Westchester Rockland Putnam Orange Dutchess Ulster Columbia Greene

King 

mackerel

Scomberom

orous 

cavalla

Eggs x x

Larvae x x

Juveniles x x

Adults x x

Spanish 

mackerel

Scoberomor

ous

maculatus

Eggs x

Larvae x

Juveniles x

Adults x

Cobia

Rachycentr

on 

canadum

Eggs x x

Larvae x x

Juveniles x x

Adults x x

*Essential Fish Habitat conditions are not present for listed species north of Greene County

Sources: http://www.nero.noaa.gov/hcd/list.htm

http://library.fws.gov/pubs5/web_link/text/low_hud.htm#Table21-1

http://hrnerr.org/public/Benthic/bathy/GE_hudson_bathy.html

High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program Page G-143

New York State Department of Transportation 
New York

Connecticut

New York

New Jersey

Hudson River

Hudson River Park

General Grant National Memorial

Riverbank State Park

Philipse Manor Hall

Old Croton Aqueduct

Rockefeller State Park Preserve

Hudson Highlands State Park

Federal Land within Hudson

Highlands State Park

Underwater State Park

Walkway over the

Hudson State Park

Yonkers

Poughkeepsie

New York Penn Station

§ ̈¦87 § ̈¦84

§ ̈¦287

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦280

§ ̈¦78

§ ̈¦95

B e r g e n B e r g e n

E s s e x E s s e x

U n i o n U n i o n

P a s s a i c P a s s a i c

H u d s o n H u d s o n

M o r r i s M o r r i s

O r a n g e O r a n g e

U l s t e r U l s t e r

R o c k l a n d R o c k l a n d

D u t c h e s s D u t c h e s s

P u t n a m P u t n a m

W e s t c h e s t e r W e s t c h e s t e r

Q u e e n s Q u e e n s

B r o n x B r o n x

K i n g s K i n g s

N e w Y o r k N e w Y o r k

New York

Ramapo

Tuxedo

Cortlandt

Fishkill

Newburgh

Gardiner

Philipstown

Yorktown

Plattekill

Montgomery

La Grange

East Fishkill

Woodbury

Lloyd

Kent

Cornwall

Greenburgh

New Windsor

Monroe

Stony Point

Wappinger

Shawangunk

Clarkstown

Highlands

Putnam Valley

Orangetown

Yonkers

Haverstraw

Poughkeepsie

Marlborough

Ossining

New Castle

Somers

Crawford

New Rochelle

New Paltz

Beacon

Peekskill

Scarsdale

Rochester

Eastchester

Mount Vernon

Pelham

Beekman

North Hempstead

Pleasant Valley

Wallkill

Copyright:© 2013 Esri

Hudson River

Hudson River

New York

Connecticut

Putnam

Acres

Underwater State Park

Quiet Cove

Riverfront Park

Franklin D Roosevelt

Home National

Historic Site

Vanderbilt Mansion

National Historic Site

Margaret Lewis

Norrie State Park

Staatsburg State

Historical Site

Ogden Mills and Ruth Livingston Mills Memorial State Park

Tivoli Bay Wildlife

Management Area

Clermont State Historic Site

Stockport Flats Tidal Wetland

Conservation Easement

Olana State Historic Site

Rogers Island Wildlife

Management Area

Hudson State Boat Launch

Middle Ground

Flats Unique Area

Stockport Flats Wildlife

Management Area

Hudson River

Island State Park

Nutton Hook Tidal Wetland

Federal Land within Schodack

Island State Park

Schodack Island State Park

Albany Pine Bush

State Unique Area

Hudson

Rhinecliff

Poughkeepsie

Albany-Rensselaer

§ ̈¦87

§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦787

§ ̈¦890

A l b a n y A l b a n y

D u t c h e s s D u t c h e s s

C o l u m b i a C o l u m b i a

U l s t e r U l s t e r

G r e e n e G r e e n e

R e n s s e l a e r R e n s s e l a e r

Milan

Schodack

Saugerties

Colonie

Westerlo

Stanford

Lloyd

Clinton

Gallatin

Guilderland

Coeymans

Washington

Ulster

Claverack

Bethlehem

Chatham

New Scotland

Red Hook

Berne

Taghkanic

Greenville

Ancram

Livingston

Nassau

Dover

Brunswick

Union Vale La Grange

Catskill

Ghent

Esopus

Hyde Park

Rhinebeck

Coxsackie

Albany

New Baltimore

Hunter

Kinderhook

Pine Plains

Copake

Stuyvesant

Knox

Amenia

Pleasant Valley

Clermont

Greenport

Troy

East Greenbush

North Greenbush Poestenkill

Germantown

Woodstock

Kingston

Poughkeepsie

Princetown

Plattekill

Cohoes

Watervliet

Copyright:© 2013 Esri

PENNSYLVANIA

ONTARIO

(CANADA)

NEW YORK

6 5 4 3

1

2

KEY MAP

0 2.5 5 10

Miles

MAP 1 MAP 2

I Tier 1 EIS

High Speed Rail

Empire Corridor Program

Parks and Recreation Map

Source: New York State GIS

State Parks, Historic and Preserves

National Memorial

!0 National Natural Landmarks

National Wildlife Refuges

Federal Parks/Historic Sites

State Heritage Corridor Areas

County Parks/Recreation

Municipal Parks/Recreation

# Municipal Parks with LWCF Funding

p DEC Boat Launch

" Private/NonProfit Parks

Existing Empire Corridor

Alternative 125 Corridor

Amtrak Station

Alt. 125 as shown is a potential corridor used to analyze the potential operating characteristics, environmental impacts and cost for this speed (125 mph) threshold.

*

*

Exhibit G-22
Hudson River

Albany Pine Bush State Unique Area

Lock 9 State Canal Park

Guy Park

Schoharie Crossing

Nelliston Boat Launch Site

Herkimer Home

Moss Island National Natural Landmark

Plantation Island Wildlife

Management Area

Amsterdam

Schenectady

Albany-Rensselaer

§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦88

§ ̈¦87

§ ̈¦787

§ ̈¦890

F u l t o n F u l t o n

O t s e g o O t s e g o

S a r a t o g a S a r a t o g a

A l b a n y A l b a n y

M o n t g o m e r y M o n t g o m e r y

S c h o h a r i e S c h o h a r i e

H e r k i m e r H e r k i m e r

S c h e n e c t a d y S c h e n e c t a d y Root

Glen

Otsego

Knox

Colonie

Florida

Minden

Johnstown

Mayfield

Galway

Stark

Duanesburg

Greenfield

Glenville

Malta

Milton

Berne

Sharon

Warren

Palatine

Guilderland

Fairfield

Seward

Perth

Hartwick

Carlisle

Wright

Stratford Wilton

Providence

Danube

Westford

Ballston

Salisbury

Herkimer

Exeter

Richfield

Cobleskill

Roseboom

Decatur

Fulton

Newport

Middlefield

Oppenheim Caroga

Ephratah

Clifton Park

Mohawk

Springfield

Charleston

Bleecker

Charlton

Broadalbin

Columbia Canajoharie

Rotterdam

Manheim

Stillwater

Albany

Cherry Valley

Schuyler

Schoharie

Middleburgh

New Scotland

Amsterdam

Bethlehem

Little Falls

Princetown

Richmondville

Worcester

Esperance

Saratoga Springs

Niskayuna

St Johnsville

Summit

Edinburg

Northampton

Schenectady

Waterford

Cohoes

Gloversville

Milford Maryland Copyright:© 2013 Esri

Oneida

Lake Oriskany Battlefield

Oriskany Flats Wildlife

Management Area Rome State Wildlife Management Area

Old Erie Canal State

Historic Park State Fairgrounds

State Park at the Fair

Carpenter's Creek

Fisherman's Access Rome

Utica

Syracuse

§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦81

§ ̈¦481

§ ̈¦790

O n e i d a O n e i d a

O n o n d a g a O n o n d a g a

M a d i s o n M a d i s o n

O s w e g o O s w e g o

C a y u g a C a y u g a

H e r k i m e r H e r k i m e r

O t s e g o O t s e g o

C o r t l a n d C o r t l a n d

Vienna

Verona

Sullivan

Niles

Pompey

Eaton

Cicero

Brookfield

Lysander

Fabius

Manlius

Nelson

Onondaga

Paris

Lenox

Trenton

Marcy

Tully

Vernon

Madison

Granby

Otisco

Fenner

La Fayette

Lebanon Hamilton

Kirkland

Marshall

Schroeppel

Western

Russia

Litchfield

Plainfield

Hastings

Ira

Annsville

Camden

Sangerfield

Steuben

Scott

Rome

Clay

Constantia

Lee

Floyd

Cazenovia

De Witt

Spafford

Skaneateles

Frankfort

Deerfield

Marcellus

Lincoln

Augusta

Exeter

Schuyler

Utica

Oneida

Westmoreland

Winfield

Syracuse

Georgetown

Stockbridge

DeRuyter

Smithfield

West Monroe

Whitestown

Cuyler

Bridgewater

Volney

New Hartford

Cato

Owasco

Richfield

Remsen

Columbia

Palermo

Edmeston

Fulton

Brutus

Amboy

Copyright:© 2013 Esri

PENNSYLVANIA

ONTARIO

(CANADA)

NEW YORK

6 5 4 3

1

2

KEY MAP

MAP 4

MAP 3

I 0 5 10 2.5

Miles

Tier 1 EIS

High Speed Rail

Empire Corridor Program

Parks and Recreation Map

Source: NYS GIS 

!0 National Natural Landmarks

National Memorial

National Wildlife Refuges

Federal Parks/Historic Sites

State Heritage Corridor Areas

State Parks, Historic and Preserves

County Parks/Recreation

Municipal Parks/Recreation

# Municipal Parks with LWCF Funding

" Private/NonProfit Parks

Alternative 125 Corridor

Amtrak Station

Existing Empire Corridor

Alt. 125 as shown is a potential corridor used to analyze the potential operating characteristics, environmental impacts and cost for this speed (125 mph) threshold.

*

*

Exhibit G-22
Lake

Ontario

ra

s

0 ft of the existing rail.

Montezuma National Wildlife Refuge Northern Montezuma

Wildlife Management

Area

Montezuma National Wildlife Refuge

Future Acquisition Area

Rochester

§ ̈¦390

§ ̈¦490 § ̈¦590

M o n r o e M o n r o e W a y n e W a y n e

O n t a r i o O n t a r i o

C a y u g a C a y u g a

S e n e c a S e n e c a L i v i n g s t o n L i v i n g s t o n

O s w e g o O s w e g o

O n o n d a g a O n o n d a g a

Ira

Sodus

Galen

Phelps

Chili

Fayette

Cato

Tyre

Greece

Huron

Arcadia

Parma

Lima

Lyons

Butler

Victor

Sterling

Rush

Ogden

Wolcott

Hannibal

Riga

Mendon

Victory

York

Penfield

Seneca

Ontario

Macedon

Webster

Perinton

Junius

Henrietta

Hopewell

Conquest

Walworth

Caledonia

Rochester

Livonia

Brutus

Gorham

Fleming

Geneseo Bristol

Mentz

Hamlin

Wheatland

Gates

Oswego

Niles

Avon

Rose

Canandaigua

Marion

Palmyra

Aurelius

Savannah

Farmington Manchester

Williamson

Owasco

Pittsford

Waterloo

Springport

Seneca Falls

East Bloomfield

Richmond

Brighton

Montezuma

West Bloomfield

Geneva

Scipio

Clarkson

Lysander

Irondequoit Sweden

East Rochester

Copyright:© 2013 Esri

Ontario

(Canada)

New York

(United States)

Lake

Erie

Lake

Ontario

Lake

Ontario

Whirlpool State Park

Buffalo-Depew

Niagara Falls

Buffalo-Exchange Street

§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦190 § ̈¦490

§ ̈¦290

E r i e E r i e

N i a g a r a N i a g a r a

G e n e s e e G e n e s e e

O r l e a n s O r l e a n s

W y o m i n g W y o m i n g

M o n r o e M o n r o e

L i v i n g s t o n L i v i n g s t o n

E r i e E r i e

York

Barre Royalton

Elba

Riga

Darien

Batavia

Wilson

Buffalo

Elma

Shelby

Amherst

Hartland

Attica

Clarence

Le Roy

Alabama

Alden

Hamlin

Newstead

Porter

Newfane

Byron

Ridgeway

Gaines

Bennington

Cambria

Pavilion

Murray

Bethany

Sweden

Pembroke

Marilla

Stafford

Lancaster

Bergen

Clarkson

Alexander

Clarendon

Carlton

Perry

Yates

Kendall

Ogden

Caledonia

Covington

Aurora Wales Sheldon Leicester

Somerset

Warsaw

Lockport

Lewiston Albion

Middlebury

Wheatfield Oakfield

Pendleton

Grand Island

Hamburg

Cheektowaga

Orchard Park

Tonawanda

West Seneca

Wheatland

Niagara Falls

Orangeville

North Tonawanda

Lackawanna

Copyright:© 2013 Esri

PENNSYLVANIA

ONTARIO

(CANADA)

NEW YORK

6 5 4 3

1

2

KEY MAP

I 0 5 10 2.5

Miles

Tier 1 EIS

High Speed Rail

Empire Corridor Program

MAP 6

MAP 5

Parks and Recreation Map

Source: NYS GIS 

!0 National Natural Landmarks

National Memorial

National Wildlife Refuges

Federal Parks/Historic Sites

State Heritage Corridor Areas

State Parks, Historic and Preserves

County Parks/Recreation

Municipal Parks/Recreation

# Municipal Parks with LWCF Funding

" Private/NonProfit Parks

Alternative 125 Corridor

Existing Empire Corridor

Amtrak Station

Alt. 125 as shown is a potential corridor used to analyze the potential operating characteristics, environmental impacts and cost for this speed (125 mph) threshold.

*

*

Exhibit G-22
Appendix H Draft Programmatic Agreement
This page intentionally left blank.
PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT AMONG

THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINSTRATION,

THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, 

AND

THE NEW YORK STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER

REGARDING

THE HIGH SPEED RAIL EMPIRE CORRIDOR PROGRAM

WHEREAS, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), in cooperation with the New York State 

Department of Transportation (NYSDOT), proposes to construct the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor 

Program, a program of proposed improvements to intercity passenger rail service along the Empire 

Corridor between New York City and Niagara Falls, New York (“the Program”); and

WHEREAS, the FRA has determined the Program constitutes an undertaking as defined in 36 CFR 

800.16(y), and is subject to review in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation 

Act (NHPA), 16 U.S.C. 470f, and its implementing regulations at 36 CFR Part 800; and 

WHEREAS, FRA is the lead federal agency for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) and, in cooperation with NYSDOT, will address the potential environmental impacts of the 

Program in accordance with the requirements of NEPA, using a tiered process, as provided for in 40 CFR 

1508.28; and 

WHEREAS, FRA, in cooperation with NYSDOT, is preparing a Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement 

(“Tier 1 EIS”), which will address broad corridor-level issues and proposals of the Program, as part of the 

initial phase of the tiered process; and 

WHEREAS, FRA in cooperation with NYSDOT will prepare, site-specific environmental documentation 

for component projects in subsequent phases or tiers of the program (Tier 2) in accordance with NEPA; 

and 

WHEREAS, in coordination with the tiered process under NEPA, Section 106 of NHPA is being 

progressed using a phased process to conduct identification and evaluation efforts and to apply the criteria 

of adverse effect pursuant to 36 CFR 800.5; and 

WHEREAS, FRA, in cooperation with NYSDOT, initiated consultation with the New York State 

Historic Preservation Officer (NYSHPO) pursuant to 36 CFR 800.2(c)(4) for the Undertaking covered by 

this Programmatic Agreement (PA); and

WHEREAS, FRA has invited the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) to participate in 

the Section 106 consultation for this Undertaking and ACHP has declined via e-mail dated July 20, 2012; 

and 

WHEREAS, FRA and NYSDOT, in consultation with NYSHPO and federally recognized tribes, 

including the Cayuga Nation, the Delaware Nation, the Delaware Tribe, the Stockbridge-Munsee Band of 

Mohican Indians, the Oneida Indian Nation, the Onondaga Nation, the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe, the 

Seneca Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma, the Seneca Nation of Indians, the Shinnecock Indian Nation, the 

Tonawanda Seneca Nation, and the Tuscarora Nation, have defined an area of potential effects (APE) in 

accordance with 36 CFR 800.4(a)(1), based on the five (5) alternatives advanced for study in the Tier 1 

EIS, as shown on Attachment A and the APE may be modified for each component project advanced as 

part of the Program, based on the individual scope of the subsequent component projects; and

WHEREAS, FRA and NYSDOT in consultation with NYSHPO and federally recognized tribes, have 

conducted preliminary identification efforts, established the likely presence of historic properties within 

the APE for each of the Tier 1 alternatives, and determined that the Program has the potential to affect 

PA-1 
High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Project Programmatic Agreement

historic properties included on or eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places 

(NRHP); and

WHEREAS, in accordance with 36 CFR 800.14(b)(1)(ii) and except as otherwise stated in this PA, this 

PA sets forth the process by which FRA will fulfill its obligations under Section 106 of NHPA for Tier 2 

undertakings, given that the final identification of historic properties and effects on any such properties 

cannot be fully determined prior to approval of the undertaking; and 

WHEREAS, this PA also serves to provide Program-wide consistency in consultation procedures, 

documentation standards, and Federal agency oversight in compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA for 

the component projects that will be undertaken as part of the Program; and 

WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of NEPA, NHPA, and SEQRA, NYSDOT and FRA conducted 

a public involvement process as part of the environmental review for the Tier 1 EIS. As part of this 

outreach, information was provided to federal, state, and local agency representatives; elected officials; 

property owners; interested persons; and interested organizations; and 

WHEREAS, FRA in coordination with NYSDOT, has consulted with federally recognized tribes with a 

known interest in geographical areas included in the proposed High Speed Rail Empire Corridor (as 

detailed in Attachment B), considered their views, and offered them an opportunity to sign this PA as 

Concurring Parties; and 

WHEREAS, a Concurring Party has participated in the Section 106 process as a consulting party, accepts 

the outcome of the process and content of the PA, but their concurrence is not required to execute, amend, 

or terminate the PA; and

WHEREAS, FRA has approved requests from the following organizations to consult on historic 

preservation matters of interest to them associated with this Program and has invited those organizations

to sign this PA as Concurring Parties: the Preservation League of New York State; Preservation Buffalo 

Niagara; and the National Park Service/ Erie Canalway National Heritage Corridor; 

WHEREAS, tribal lands are considered to be “all lands within the exterior boundaries of any Indian 

reservation and all dependent Indian communities,” as defined in Section 301(14) of the NHPA and 36 

CFR § 800.16(x); and 

WHEREAS FRA, NYSDOT, and NYSHPO are signatories pursuant to 36 CFR 800.6(c)(1) and have 

sole authority to execute, amend, or terminate this PA. 

NOW, THEREFORE, the FRA, NYSDOT, and NYSHPO agree that, except as otherwise stated in this 

PA, Tier 2 undertakings shall be administered in accordance with the following stipulations to satisfy 

Section 106 requirements for the Program. 

PA-2 
High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Project Programmatic Agreement

STIPULATIONS

I. APPLICABILITY

A. Unless the signatories amend or terminate this PA, and except as provided in Stipulation I.B, this PA 

shall apply to this Undertaking and all component projects advanced as part of the Program. 

B. This PA shall not apply to effects of this Undertaking that occur on or affect tribal lands as defined in 

Section 301(14) of the NHPA and 36 CFR 800.16(x). Notwithstanding this, Stipulation IV below 

addresses the process by which FRA and NYSDOT intend to consult with federally recognized tribes 

and comply with Section 106 of the NHPA for effects that occur on or affect tribal lands. If

undertakings occur on tribal lands, the THPO will serve in the role of the SHPO as described in 36 

CFR 800.3 and Section 101(d) of NHPA if there is a THPO. If a tribe has no THPO, FRA will 

consult with that tribe’s designated representative in addition to and on the same basis as consultation 

with the SHPO. In accordance with the referenced statute and regulations, the FRA, the lead Federal 

agency, will follow appropriate tribal consultation procedures for the identification of historic 

properties and resolution of adverse effects. 

C. In the event that NYSDOT applies for additional federal funding or approvals for the undertakings 

from another agency that is not party to this PA and the Undertaking, as described herein remains 

unchanged, such funding or approving agency may choose to comply with Section 106 by agreeing in 

writing to the terms of this PA and notifying and consulting with FRA and NYSHPO. Any necessary 

modifications will be considered in accordance with Stipulation XVIII.B of this PA. 

1. Routine maintenance activities that would not adversely affect historic properties as specifically 

described in Attachment C will be exempt from the Section 106 review procedures described in 

this PA.

II. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES AS SIGNATORIES 

A. FRA

As the lead Federal agency, FRA has primary responsibility pursuant to 36 CFR 800.2(a)(2) to ensure 

that the provisions of this PA are carried out. FRA will conduct government-to-government 

consultation with federally recognized tribes, execute MOAs and programmatic agreements to 

address or resolve adverse effects as necessary for the component projects advanced in the Tier 2, and 

participate in the resolution of disputes. FRA is responsible for all determinations of eligibility and 

findings of Effect of the projects. Consistent with the requirements of 36 CFR 800.2(a) and 

800.2(c)(4), FRA remains legally responsible for ensuring that the terms of this PA are carried out 

and for all findings and determinations made pursuant to this PA. 

B. NYSDOT 

Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.2(a)(3), FRA delegates to the NYSDOT the responsibility to conduct cultural 

resource studies in coordination with FRA; and to prepare documents and reports with 

recommendations for required findings of eligibility and effect in coordination with the FRA and 

submit them to the SHPO for concurrence. In addition, FRA authorizes NYSDOT to initiate 

consultation with the NYSHPO, federally recognized tribes, and other consulting parties, in 

accordance with 36 CFR 800.2(c)(4). NYSDOT shall be responsible for the following, where 

applicable: 

• Consult with other consulting parties and the public; 

PA-3 
High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Project Programmatic Agreement

• In coordination with FRA, delineate the Area of Potential Effect for each component project 

as needed in consultation with the SHPO; 

• Prepare documentation for NYSHPO and FRA including determinations of eligibility and 

effect; 

• Circulate comments on Section 106 documents from the NYSHPO, federally recognized 

tribes, other consulting parties, and the public; 

• Maintain documentation of the Section 106 compliance for each component project within 

the Program; 

• Develop a Draft MOA for each applicable project within the Undertaking as required; 

• Identify individuals and organizations with a potential interest in participating in Section 106 

consultation for component projects; 

• Develop and implement project MOAs in consultation with MOA signatories for component 

projects as appropriate; and

• Develop and implement treatment plans for component projects where applicable which set 

forth measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects on historic properties’ 

treatment plans may be included as provisions or attachments in the MOAs for applicable 

component projects. 

C. NYSHPO

Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.3(c)(4), the NYSHPO shall review and comment on all adequately 

documented project submittals within 30 calendar days of receipt. No response from the NYSHPO 

within 30 calendar days of receipt shall indicate concurrence with the project submittal and FRA 

findings. 

III. CONSULTATION WITH THE NYSHPO 

A. For each component project, NYSDOT, in coordination with FRA, shall initiate consultation with the 

NYSHPO to seek input on refining the APE based on the scope of the individual project, and to 

identify potential consulting parties.

B. NYSDOT, in coordination with FRA, will direct cultural resource consultants to conduct 

archaeological and architectural surveys as needed to identify historic properties within the APE. 

NYSDOT will provide copies of Draft Cultural Resource Survey (CRS) reports to FRA for review. 

Based on CRS reports, FRA will make findings regarding NR eligibility of historic properties.

C. NYSDOT will direct cultural resource consultants to prepare Final CRS reports based on FRA 

findings.

D. NYSDOT will provide Final CRS reports to NYSHPO for 30-calendar day review. Submittals to 

NYSHPO shall be made using NYSHPO’s preferred report format and submission process at the time 

of submittal; allowance shall be made for changes in NYSHPO’s submission process and forms 

resulting from updates to NYSHPO’s computer system, which is expected to be in place by 2014. 

NYSDOT will seek the concurrence of NYSHPO with the report’s findings. In coordination with 

FRA, NYSDOT will address comments or requests for additional information from NYSHPO within 

the 30-calendar day review period. NYSHPO will be provided a 30-calendar day review period for 

each separate report.

PA-4 
High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Project Programmatic Agreement

E. FRA, in coordination with NYSDOT and in consultation with the NYSHPO, will apply the criteria of 

adverse effects (36 CFR 800.5(a)(1)) to identified historic properties within the APE, and document 

the assessment of effects. The Finding Documentation will be provided to the NYSHPO for 30-

calendar day review and comment. If no adverse effects are identified, the process will be concluded 

if NYSHPO does not object within 30 calendar days, as described in VI.E.

F. FRA shall notify the ACHP of any adverse effect finding, and provide the ACHP with the Finding 

Documentation prepared in accordance with 36 CFR 800.11(e). 

G. FRA shall notify the ACHP of any undertaking that may adversely affect an NHL, and shall invite 

ACHP to participate in consultation to resolve adverse effects. FRA shall also notify the Secretary of 

the Department of the Interior of any consultation involving an NHL, and formally invite the 

Secretary to participate in the Section 106 consultation process when there may be an adverse effect 

to these properties. 

H. FRA, in coordination with NYSDOT, will consult with the NYSHPO and ACHP, if participating, to 

consider measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects on historic properties. If adverse 

effects cannot be avoided, FRA will request written concurrence from the NYSHPO, issue an adverse 

effect determination for the project, and move forward with consultation to develop a Memorandum 

of Agreement (MOA), including mitigation measures agreed-upon through consultation. 

IV. CONSULTATION WITH FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED TRIBES

A. FRA

1. As the Lead Federal agency with responsibility for Section 106 compliance, FRA is responsible 

for all government-to-government consultation with federally recognized tribes. Attachment B 

contains a list of federally recognized tribes with an identified interest in the geographical area of 

the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor. 

2. FRA shall ensure that consultation with federally recognized tribes takes place early in the project 

development process for each project addressed in the Tier 2 process to identify cultural, 

confidentiality, or other concerns including those about historic properties, and to allow adequate 

time for consideration of such concerns whenever they may be expressed. 

3. In accordance with 36 CFR 800.2(c)(2), individual federally recognized tribes may be identified 

as consulting parties for each component project based on the project location relative to areas of 

interest for Section 106 consultation. 

4. Consultation with federally recognized tribes shall take place throughout the development of 

subsequent component projects within this Undertaking, regardless of whether such tribes are 

concurring parties to this PA or have actively participated in Section 106 consultation during the 

Tier 1 phase of the Program. 

5. In accordance with Section VIII.A of this PA, if FRA determines that a component project 

occurring on tribal land will cause adverse effects to historic properties, and a MOA to resolve 

those effects is necessary, the affected tribe shall be a required signatory to the MOA. 

6. In accordance with Section VIII.A of this PA, if FRA determines that a component project not 

occurring on tribal land will cause adverse effects to historic properties of a religious or cultural 

significance to a tribe, and a MOA to resolve those effects is necessary, FRA shall consult with 

the affected tribe and shall invite the tribe to be a concurring party or signatory to that MOA, as 

appropriate. 

PA-5 
High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Project Programmatic Agreement

B. Consultation for Each Project

1. FRA shall invite federally recognized tribes with an identified interest in the geographical area 

that may be affected by a component project to participate in consultation for that component 

project. The FRA may delegate some of its consultation responsibilities to NYSDOT for a 

project component, but only with an affected tribes’ written consent. Communication for the 

purpose of providing opportunities to participate in consultation may take the form of meetings, 

written correspondence, review of reports and documents, emails, and/or phone calls

2. FRA shall consult on a government-to-government basis with federally recognized tribes at key 

milestones in the Section 106 process to gain input. The consultation with federally recognized 

tribes may occur at the following points in the Section 106 process: 

i. During identification of historic properties, to assist in the identification of properties of 

religious and cultural significance. 

ii. During assessment of adverse effects, to provide views regarding the project’s effects on 

identified cultural and historic properties, and to participate in the development of avoidance, 

minimization and treatment measures for adverse effects to both archaeological and built 

resources as appropriate.

iii. During resolution of adverse effects, to participate in the development of mitigation measures 

to be incorporated into an MOA developed by FRA in consultation with the NYSHPO, 

federally recognized tribes, and other consulting parties. 

3. NYSDOT in coordination with FRA will provide copies of CRS report(s) and Finding 

Documentation for 30-day calendar review period, concurrent with review by the NYSHPO. 

The views and comments of federally recognized tribes will be considered by FRA as part of the 

consultation process for the identification of historic properties and assessment of effects. 

4. For Native American groups that are not federally recognized, FRA will consider requests to 

participate as other consulting parties based on their statement of interest in the project.

V. PARTICIPATION OF OTHER CONSULTING PARTIES AND THE PUBLIC

A. Public Involvement 

Public involvement in planning and implementation of undertakings covered by this PA shall be 

governed by NYSDOT’s established Public Involvement procedures for planning and conducting 

public outreach. Historic resources will be identified and effects will be disclosed to the extent 

allowable under 36 CFR 800.2(d)(1-2), 800.3(e), and 800.11(c)(1 and 3) and Stipulation XIII of this 

PA. 

Public involvement and the release of information hereunder shall be consistent with 36 CFR 

800.2(d)(1-2), 800.3(e), and 800.11(c)(1 and 3), and the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, 

and the implementing regulation applicable to the U.S. Department of Transportation, at 49 CFR Part 

7. 

Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.11(e) through (g), summaries of any views provided by consulting parties or 

the public will be included in documentation of project effects to historic properties and any 

individual MOAs.

B. Consulting Parties 

PA-6 
High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Project Programmatic Agreement

Consulting parties shall participate in undertakings covered by this PA in accordance with 36 CFR 

800.2(c)(3) through (5) and 800.3(f). Consulting parties may include other federal, state, regional, or 

local agencies that may have responsibilities for historic properties and may want to review reports 

and findings for a project within their jurisdiction. 

FRA, in coordination with NYSDOT, will consult with NYSHPO early in the process for each 

component project to identify potential consulting parties and methods to be used for involving 

consulting parties in the process. 

VI. IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES

A. Area of Potential Effects

The Area of Potential Effects (APE) for each undertaking will be determined by FRA in coordination 

with NYSDOT in accordance with the APE Delineation guidelines (Attachment D). As described in 

Attachment D, throughout the design process, FRA in coordination with NYSDOT, and in 

consultation with federally recognized tribes, as appropriate, will determine if revisions to an 

undertaking require modifications to the APE established as part of Tier 1. If an APE requires 

revisions, FRA in coordination with NYSDOT will inform the SHPO and other consulting parties, 

and take appropriate measures to modify the scope of identification efforts. 

B. Identification of Historic Properties 

1. The NYSDOT, in coordination with FRA, will be responsible for carrying out appropriate studies 

to identify historic properties within the APE in accordance with 36 CFR 800.4(b), and to prepare 

documentation in accordance with Attachment E. As appropriate, these methods may be modified 

for the specific needs of component projects in consultation with the NYSHPO and participating 

federally recognized tribes, as appropriate, based on the review of the Principal Investigator (PI) 

and current professional standards. FRA shall make determinations of eligibility based on NRHP 

criteria (36 CFR 60.4) and evaluated in accordance with provisions of 36 CFR 800.4(c). 

Evaluation methods and criteria shall be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards 

and Guidelines for Evaluation (48 Fed. Reg. 44729-44738) (36 CFR 63) and shall be completed 

by PIs qualified in the appropriate discipline: archaeology, architectural history, or history. 

2. The NYSHPO and New York State Museum (NYSM) archaeological site files contain highly 

sensitive archaeological site locational information, including information relating to human 

burials, and are not a public record (36 CFR 800.6(a)(5); 800.11(c)). Any project documents 

intended for public review should not include sensitive archaeological site locational information. 

Any documentation prepared with this information should be prominently labeled “Confidential. 

Not for Public Release,” and the distribution strictly controlled. Alternatively, an alternate public 

version of the documents may be prepared that summarizes information relevant to understanding 

the nature of historic properties and the project’s potential effects on those properties without 

disclosing specific locations or sensitive information. NYSHPO shall be consulted prior to 

disseminating this information. 

3. A reasonable and good faith effort shall be made to identify historic properties within the APE for 

each of the component projects that are advanced at the Tier 2 level and will be documented in 

individual CRS Reports as described in Attachment E. The content, methodology, level of effort, 

and documentation requirements for historic property evaluations in the CRS shall be conducted 

in accordance with State Education Department (SED) Work Scope Standards, which incorporate 

the standards of the New York Archaeological Council (NYAC), as described in detail in 

Attachment E. The CRS reports will be submitted for review by the NYSHPO, tribal historic 

PA-7 
High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Project Programmatic Agreement

preservation officers (THPOs) and/or designated tribal representatives for federally recognized 

tribes who are participating in Section 106 consultation for the project, and any additional 

consulting parties. 

i. Archaeological properties include precontact and historic period archaeological sites, 

properties identified as per 36 CFR 800.4(b), objects and districts. The goal of the 

archaeological survey is to locate and identify any significant archaeological resources that 

may be affected by the project. Evaluations shall be made by PIs fully qualified in the 

discipline of archaeology. Archaeological properties within the APE shall be documented in 

the CRS report. 

A list of archaeological resources exempt from evaluation is provided in Attachment F. 

Any archaeological investigations that may be required on New York State-owned land shall 

be conducted under a State Archaeologist’s permit (Education Law Section 233). A State 

Archaeologist’s permit application shall be submitted to the NYSM by a qualified 

professional archaeologist retained by the project sponsors. 

ii. Historic architectural properties include historic buildings, structures, objects, sites, and 

districts. Evaluations shall be made by PIs. Historic architectural properties within the APE 

that are identified by PIs as historic properties shall be documented in the CRS report. 

Historic architectural properties evaluated as ineligible for the NRHP by PIs shall be 

documented in the CRS report. The content, methodology, level of effort, and documentation 

requirements for historic architectural evaluations in the CRS report are provided in detail in 

Attachment E. A list of historic architectural property types exempt from evaluation is 

provided in Attachment F. 

C. Procedures for Evaluation of Historic Properties 

1. FRA shall review the identified historic properties presented in the Draft CRS Report, which 

would include documentation of identified historic properties in the APE including those that are 

listed in the NRHP, previously determined eligible for the NRHP, recommended eligible for the 

NRHP in the CRS report, or that are recommended not eligible for the NRHP. FRA shall make 

determinations regarding the NRHP eligibility of previously unevaluated properties identified in 

the approved CRS Report.

2. NYSDOT shall prepare a Final CRS report based on FRA’s review and approval. 

3. NYSDOT shall submit the Final CRS report to the NYSHPO, federally recognized tribes 

participating in consultation identified as a result of Stipulations IV.B and V.B and any consulting 

parties, who shall have 30 calendar days to review the CRS report findings and provide their 

comments. 

4. Known archaeological properties whose NRHP eligibility cannot be evaluated prior to approval 

of an undertaking will be presumed NRHP eligible until archaeological investigation to evaluate 

their eligibility can occur. Project-specific MOAs may include a provision for treatment plans that 

include archaeological testing, monitoring, and/or a data recovery program. 

5. If, after the submission of the Final CRS report to NYSHPO, federally recognized tribes, and any 

consulting parties, there are changes to the APE that include additional properties not exempt 

from evaluation or information is received that there may be additional historic properties within 

the APE, a Supplemental CRS report will be prepared, and distributed following review by FRA, 

to NYSHPO and all parties who received the Final CRS report for a review and comment period 

PA-8 
High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Project Programmatic Agreement

of 30 days. If no objection is made, consistent with Stipulation VI.D, within the 30-calendar day 

period, the findings for those historic properties in the Supplemental CRS report would become 

final. 

D. Eligibility Disagreements

Should a disagreement arise regarding the NRHP eligibility of a property in the APE for an 

undertaking, FRA shall forward a Determination of Eligibility documentation to the Keeper of the 

National Register (Keeper) for resolution in accordance with 36 CFR 800.4(c)(2) if: 

1. NYSHPO or a federal agency with jurisdiction over the involved lands objects in writing within 

30 calendar days to a finding of eligibility, or

2. A Native American tribe or group that ascribes traditional religious and cultural significance to a 

property objects in writing within 30 calendar days to a Finding of Eligibility regarding that 

property; and 

3. FRA is not able to resolve that objection through consultation with the NYSHPO and the 

objecting party as provided for in Stipulation XVIII.A.

Should a member of the public disagree with any NRHP eligibility determinations, NYSDOT shall 

inform the FRA and any affected signatories and take the appropriate objection into account. 

NYSDOT shall consult for no more than 30 calendar days with the objecting party and, with any or 

all of the other signatories. NYSDOT shall document such consultation efforts and submit the 

findings in writing to the FRA for review. FRA’s decision regarding resolution of the objection from 

a member of the public will be final. 

E. No Historic Properties Affected

If FRA determines that no historic properties are affected by the proposed project as defined in 36 

CFR 800.4(d)(1), NYSDOT shall provide documentation of this finding, consistent with 36 CFR 

800.11(d), to the NYSHPO and participating federally recognized tribes and shall notify consulting 

parties, If the NYSHPO does not object within 30 calendar days of receipt of an adequately 

documented finding, the Section 106 process shall be complete. If NYSHPO objects to the finding 

within the 30-day period, and/or if the proposed project is located on tribal lands and the applicable 

federally recognized tribe objects to the finding, the FRA shall follow the protocol for resolution set 

forth in 36 CFR 800.4(d)(ii) and (iv). 

VII. ASSESSMENT OF ADVERSE EFFECTS 

A. If historic properties are identified in the APE for a project, NYSDOT in coordination with FRA shall 

assess adverse effects in accordance with 36 CFR 800.5 and document its assessment in a Draft 

Finding Documentation in accordance with 36 CFR 800.11(e) for each undertaking where historic 

properties were identified within the APE. The Draft Finding Documentation shall describe the 

undertaking, the area of potential effects, steps taken to identify historic properties, affected 

properties and the assessment of adverse effects to historic properties, consideration of measures to 

avoid or minimize effects, and mitigation measures to resolve the project’s adverse effects, if any. 

The Draft Finding Documentation will also incorporate a record of consultation with the NYSHPO, 

federally recognized tribes, other consulting parties, and the public. Following FRA review, 

NYSDOT shall distribute the Draft Finding Documentation to the NYSHPO, federally recognized 

tribes, and other consulting parties identified as a result of Stipulations IV.B and V.B, who shall have 

a 30-day review and comment period. NYSDOT, in coordination with FRA, will ensure that 

comments are considered and prepare a revised Draft Finding Documentation for FRA review and 

PA-9 
High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Project Programmatic Agreement

approval as the basis for FRA’s effect determination for the project. NYSDOT, on behalf of FRA will 

submit the Final Finding Documentation to the NYSHPO requesting concurrence with FRA’s effect 

determination. The Final Finding Documentation will also be provided to federally recognized tribes 

and other consulting parties. If an adverse effect is found, FRA will notify the ACHP and continue 

consultation to resolve the project’s adverse effects on historic properties. 

B. FRA will notify and invite the Secretary of the Interior (represented by the National Park Service 

regional office’s program coordinator) when any project section may adversely affect a National 

Historic Landmark (NHL) pursuant to 36 CFR 800.10 and Section 110(f) of the NHPA. 

C. Consistent with 36 CFR 800.5(b) and (d)(1), FRA may determine that there is no adverse effect on 

historic properties within the APE for an undertaking when the effects of the undertaking would not 

meet the Criteria of Adverse Effect at 36 CFR 800.5(a)(1), the undertaking is modified to avoid 

adverse effects, or if conditions agreed upon by NYSHPO are imposed, such as subsequent review of 

plans for rehabilitation by the NYSHPO/THPO to ensure consistency with the Secretary’s Standards 

for the Treatment of Historic Properties (36 CFR Part 68) and applicable guidelines, to avoid adverse 

effects. Any conditions would be documented by the written concurrence of the NYSHPO and 

federally recognized tribes, as appropriate. NYSDOT will submit all such written concurrence 

documents to FRA, which is responsible for ensuring compliance with all conditions to avoid adverse 

effects.

VIII. RESOLUTION OF ADVERSE EFFECTS

A. Memoranda of Agreement

1. A MOA will be developed by NYSDOT in coordination with FRA for each component project 

that FRA determines will cause adverse effects on historic properties. The MOA will describe 

measures to avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate adverse effects, as agreed upon through 

consultation. A Draft MOA shall be circulated amongst NYSDOT, NYSHPO, FRA, participating 

federally recognized tribes, and consulting parties for review and comment. A revised MOA 

reflecting the input of these parties will be subsequently circulated for review and comment. 

2. Each MOA will include a process for efficiently addressing unanticipated discoveries in the postreview period, including the inadvertent discovery of human remains. 

3. Should federally recognized tribes decline to participate in the MOA for a specific project, they 

will be provided documentation regarding treatment that is called for in that MOA. 

4. Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.11(e) through (g), views of the public will be considered and included 

where appropriate in individual MOAs. 

5. Upon review, concurrence, and execution of the MOA, Section 106 review will be considered 

concluded for that specific project or undertaking, though coordination and compliance efforts 

would continue according to the terms of this PA and the MOA. 

B. Mitigation Measures

1. FRA, NYSDOT, and the project sponsors where applicable shall develop and implement 

avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures where adverse effects on cultural resources 

are identified for a component project. Mitigation measures will be developed in consultation 

with the NYSHPO, participating federally recognized tribes, and any consulting parties. 

2. Measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects on historic properties may require the 

development of project-specific or resource-specific treatment plans. NYSDOT and/or the project 

PA-10 
High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Project Programmatic Agreement

sponsor shall prepare a Treatment Plan documents where appropriate, for review and approval by 

NYSHPO, FRA, and participating federally recognized tribes. Treatment plans shall set forth 

specific protocols to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects and may include Archaeological 

Monitoring Plans, Data Recovery Plans, Archaeological Avoidance Plans, Construction 

Protection Plans, Historic American Building Survey (HABS)/ Historic American Engineering 

Record (HAER) recordation, or other measures, as appropriate. 

C. Treatment Plan Reviews

1. NYSDOT will provide a draft of any treatment plan to the FRA and or NYSHPO for review, 

prior to circulating the plan to consulting parties for a 30-day review and comment period. Based 

on comments received, treatment plans may be revised and will be incorporated as attachments to 

the MOA. 

D. Treatment Plan Implementation

1. Upon execution of each MOA, each related treatment plan shall be implemented. Depending 

upon the nature of the treatment, the treatment may not be completed until after the specific 

project is completed. Termination of the project after initiation of the treatment plans will require 

completion of any work in progress, and amendment of each treatment plan as described below. 

Amendments to the treatment plans will be incorporated by written agreement among the 

signatories to the MOA. Each MOA will outline appropriate reporting processes for the treatment 

plans. 

2. Dispute Resolution

The parties participating in the development and implementation of the treatment plans will come 

to agreement on the treatment prescribed in and the implementation of the treatment plan in the 

MOA. If the parties are unable to come to agreement on the treatment of adverse effects in the 

MOA, the procedures outlined in XVII.A will be followed to resolve the dispute. 

IX. CHANGES IN ANCILLARY AREA/CONSTRUCTION RIGHT-OF-WAY

NYSDOT will notify NYSHPO and potentially affected federally recognized tribes participating in 

Section 106 consultation on this Program (see Attachment B), and potentially affected consulting parties 

of any changes in the Program scope that result in changes to the APE, or effects on historic properties, 

and will reopen Section 106 consultation with appropriate potentially affected parties to address these

changes. 

X. CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL

Upon the completion of any preconstruction activities required according to the provisions of the 

applicable MOA, if any such activities are required, NYSDOT may authorize construction within portions 

of the APE. If concurrence of the approval to proceed cannot be reached among the signatories, the 

dispute will be resolved in accordance with Stipulation XVIII.A.

XI. DISCOVERIES, UNANTICIPATED ADVERSE EFFECTS, UNANTICIPATED DAMAGE

In accordance with 36 CFR 800.13(a)(2), if a previously undiscovered archaeological, historic, or cultural 

property is encountered during construction, or previously known properties will be affected or have been 

affected in an unanticipated adverse manner, NYSDOT will implement the following procedures. These 

procedures may be modified for individual component projects, to address specific concerns identified 

through consultation. 

PA-11 
High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Project Programmatic Agreement

A. NYSDOT shall ensure that all operations for the portion of the undertaking with the potential to affect 

an historic property are immediately ceased and will contact the FRA and the NYSHPO upon 

unanticipated resource discovery. Federally recognized tribes with an identified interest in the project 

location will also be notified as appropriate, based on the nature of the unanticipated discovery. 

B. If historic properties are discovered or unanticipated effects on historic properties are identified after 

construction commences, NYSDOT will follow the procedures for Discoveries without prior 

planning outlined in CFR 800.13(b)(3), 

C. If a NHL is affected, FRA shall include the Secretary of the Interior represented by the National Park 

Service regional office’s program coordinator and the ACHP in the notification process. 

XII. CONFIDENTIALITY

All parties to this PA shall ensure that shared data, including data concerning the precise location and 

nature of historic properties and properties of religious and cultural significance are protected from public 

disclosure to the greatest extent permitted by law, including conformance to Section 304 of the NHPA, as 

amended and Section 9 of the Archaeological Resource Protection Act and Executive Order on Sacred 

Sites 13007 FR 61-104 dated May 24, 1996. 

As noted under VI.B.2, NYSHPO and NYSM archaeological site files contain highly sensitive 

archaeological site locational information, including information relating to human burials, and are not a 

public record (36 CFR 800.6(a)(5); 800.11(c)). Any project documents intended for public review should 

not include sensitive archaeological site locational information. Any documentation prepared with this 

information should be prominently labeled as confidential and the distribution strictly controlled. 

Alternatively, an alternate public version of the documents may be prepared that summarize information 

relevant to understanding the nature of historic properties and the project’s potential effects on those 

properties without disclosing specific locations or sensitive information. NYSHPO shall be consulted 

prior to disseminating this information. 

XIII. HUMAN REMAINS 

If human remains are unexpectedly encountered during construction, NYSDOT in coordination with FRA 

will follow procedures in accordance with the NYSHPO Human Remains Discover Protocol: 

A. In accordance with the NYSHPO’s Human Remains Discovery Protocol (2005), the following steps 

shall be taken in the event of the unanticipated discovery of human remains: 

1. Construction activities in the vicinity of the discovery shall immediately cease and the site shall 

be secured; 

2. Human remains and any associated artifacts shall be left in place until appropriate consultation 

has taken place and a plan has been developed; 

3. The county coroner, local law enforcement and the NYSHPO shall be notified and a 

determination shall be made as to whether the remains are forensic or archaeological in nature; 

4. If the human remains are determined to be Native American, they shall be left in place until 

consultation with appropriate federally recognized tribes has occurred to identify a plan of action 

consistent with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA); 

5. If the remains are determined not to be Native American, they will be left in place until 

consultation with NYSHPO and any other appropriate parties has taken place to identify an 

appropriate plan of action for avoidance or removal. 

PA-12 
High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Project Programmatic Agreement

B. All human remains shall be treated in a manner consistent with ACHP “Policy Statement regarding 

Treatment of Human Burial Sites, Human Remains and Funerary Objects” February 23, 2007; 

http//www.achp.gov/docs/hrpolicy0207.pdf

XIV. CURATION

A. Collections from Federal Lands 

FRA will be responsible for ensuring that curation of all records and other archeological items 

resulting from identification and data recovery efforts on Federal lands is completed in accordance 

with 36 CFR Part 79, and if the archaeological materials are determined to be of Native American 

origin, FRA will follow NAGPRA regulations and procedures set forth in 43 CFR Part 10. NYSDOT 

shall ensure that documentation of the curation of these materials is prepared and provided to the 

affected parties to this PA within 10 days of receiving the archaeological materials.

B. Collections from Private Lands 

Materials collected from private lands should be returned to the landowner, or acquired through a 

Deed of Gift from the landowner. Materials from private lands to be returned to the private 

landowners after completion of the undertaking shall be maintained in accordance with 36 CFR Part 

79, and 43 CFR Part 10 if the archaeological materials are determined to be of Native American 

origin, until all necessary analysis has been completed. NYSDOT shall document the return of 

materials to private landowners or alternate curation facilities and submit copies of this 

documentation to the affected parties to this PA. 

C. State Lands

Any archaeological investigations on New York State-owned land shall be conducted under a Section 

233 permit (New York State Education Law Section 233). 

XV. PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS STANDARDS

All actions prescribed by this PA that involve the identification, evaluation, analysis, recording, treatment, 

monitoring, or disposition for historic properties, or that involve reporting or documentation of such 

actions in the form of reports, forms, or other records, shall be carried out by or under the direct 

supervision of a person or persons who meet, at a minimum, the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional 

Qualifications Standards (48 FR 44738-44739) (Appendix A to 36 CFR Part 61) in the appropriate 

discipline. Hereinafter, such persons shall be referred to as PIs. NYSDOT shall ensure that consultants 

meeting these qualification standards conduct the work outlined in this PA. However, nothing in this 

stipulation may be interpreted to preclude FRA or NYSDOT or any agent or contractor thereof from using 

the services for persons who are not PIs, as long as their activities are overseen by PIs.

XVI. DOCUMENTATION STANDARDS 

A. All documentation that supports the findings of effect made under this PA shall be consistent with 36 

CFR 800.11 and shall be in accordance with the attachments to this PA. Documentation shall be 

submitted to NYSDOT and prepared by professionals experienced in the preparation of Section 106 

documents. NYSDOT shall review the documentation for adequacy, and transmit all documentation 

cited herein as stipulated by this PA. 

B. All documentation prepared under this PA shall be kept on file at NYSDOT and FRA and made 

available to the public in a manner consistent with the respective agencies’ policies for public access 

to environmental documents, and without the inclusion of culturally sensitive information that may 

PA-13 
High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Project Programmatic Agreement

jeopardize confidentiality as stipulated by this PA, consistent with applicable confidentiality 

requirements and Federal records management requirements. 

XVII. AUTHORITIES

Compliance with the provisions of this PA does not relieve FRA or other federal agencies of any other 

responsibilities not described in this PA to comply with other legal requirements, including those imposed 

by NAGPRA (25 U.S.C. 3001 and 43 CFR 10), the ARPA (16 U.S.C. 470 aa-47011), and NEPA (42 

U.S.C. 4321-4347), and applicable Executive Orders. 

XVIII. ADMINISTRATIVE STIPULATIONS

A. Dispute Resolution 

1. Should any signatory to this PA object within 30 calendar days to any action proposed or any 

document provided for review pursuant to this PA, FRA shall consult with the objecting signatory 

to resolve the objection. If FRA determines that the objection cannot be resolved within 15 

calendar days, FRA shall forward all documentation relevant to the dispute, including FRA’s 

proposed resolution, to the ACHP. FRA will also provide a copy to all signatories and consulting 

parties for the undertaking. ACHP shall provide FRA with its advice on the resolution of the 

objection within 30 calendar days of receiving adequate documentation. Prior to reaching a final 

decision on the dispute, FRA shall prepare a written response that takes into account any timely 

advice or comments regarding the dispute from the signatories and consulting parties, including 

federally recognized tribes, and provide them with a copy of this written response. FRA will then 

implement any action determined by this dispute resolution process and proceed according to its 

final decision.

If ACHP does not provide its advice regarding the dispute within calendar 30 days, FRA may 

make a final decision on the dispute and proceed accordingly. Prior to reaching such a final 

decision, FRA shall prepare a written response that takes into account any timely comments 

regarding the dispute from the signatories and consulting parties for the undertaking, and provide 

them and ACHP with a copy of such written response. 

B. Amendment 

1. The signatories to this PA may request that it be amended, whereupon the signatories will consult 

to consider such amendment. This PA may be amended only upon written concurrence of all 

signatory parties. 

2. To address changes in the treatment of specific historic or archeological properties affected by the 

undertaking, NYSDOT may propose revisions to the treatment plans or MOAs, as appropriate, 

rather than to this PA. Upon concurrence of the signatories, NYSDOT and FRA may revise the 

treatment plans to incorporate the agreed upon changes without executing a formal amendment to 

this PA. An MOA may be amended only upon written concurrence of all signatory parties.

3. Revisions to an attachment to this PA would be implemented through consultation and include 

any necessary revisions to the PA itself that may result from modification of an attachment. 

4. Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.14(b)(2)(iii), if this PA is amended to cover or apply to an individual 

component project occurring on tribal lands, the affected tribe shall be a signatory to the amended 

PA.

C. Review and Reporting 

PA-14 
High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Project Programmatic Agreement

Each year following the execution of this PA until it expires or is terminated, NYSDOT shall provide 

all parties to this PA a summary report detailing work carried out pursuant to its terms. Such report 

shall include any scheduling changes proposed, any problems encountered, and any disputes and 

objections received in FRA’s efforts to carry out the terms of this PA. 

D. Termination 

FRA, NYSHPO, or NYSDOT may terminate this PA by providing 30 calendar days written notice to 

the other signatories; the signatories shall consult during the 30-day period prior to termination to 

seek agreement on amendments or other actions that would avoid termination. Should such 

consultation result in an agreement on an alternative to termination, the signatory parties shall 

proceed in accordance with that agreement. Should a signatory party propose termination of this PA, 

they will notify the other parties in writing. If any of the signatories individually terminates their 

participation in the PA, then the PA may be terminated in its entirety. In the event of termination, then 

FRA shall either consult in accordance with 36 CFR 800.14(b) to develop a new agreement or request 

the comments of the ACHP pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800. Beginning with the date of termination, 

FRA shall ensure that until and unless a new agreement is executed for the actions covered by this 

PA, such undertakings shall be reviewed individually in accordance with 36 CFR 800.4-800.6. 

E. Duration of this Programmatic Agreement

In the event that the terms of this PA are not carried out within 10 years, this PA shall be assessed by 

the signatories to determine if it still needed and working effectively, or whether it should be 

terminated. If the PA is effective and its duration needs to be extended, the signatories can decide to 

extend the duration of the PA. If the signatories determine that the PA is effective, but needs 

revisions, revisions will be made. In the event the signatories determine that the PA is not effective 

and cannot be amended to address concerns, the PA shall be considered null and void, memorialized 

in a letter to the signatories from FRA. If FRA chooses to continue with the undertaking, it shall reinitiate review of the undertaking in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800. 

F. Execution and Implementation of the Programmatic Agreement

This PA and its attachments shall take effect following execution by FRA. Additional attachments or 

amendments to this PA shall take effect on the dates they are fully executed by FRA, NYSHPO, and 

NYSDOT.

Execution of this PA by FRA, NYSHPO, and NYSDOT and implementation of its terms evidence 

that FRA has taken into account the effects of this undertaking on historic properties and afforded 

ACHP an opportunity to comment. 

PA-15 
High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Project Programmatic Agreement

SIGNATORIES

Federal Railroad Administration 

By: ______________________________ Date: _______________ 

New York State Historic Preservation Officer

By: ______________________________ Date: _______________ 

Commissioner New York State Department of Transportation

By: ______________________________ Date: _______________ 

PA-16 
High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Project Programmatic Agreement

CONCURRING PARTIES

Cayuga Nation 

By: ______________________________ Date: _______________ 

Delaware Nation 

By: ______________________________ Date: _______________ 

Delaware Tribe

By: ______________________________ Date: _______________ 

Stockbridge Munsee Community Band of Mohican Indians

By: ______________________________ Date: _______________ 

Oneida Indian Nation 

By: ______________________________ Date: _______________ 

PA-17 
High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Project Programmatic Agreement

Onondaga Nation 

By: ______________________________ Date: _______________ 

Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe

By: ______________________________ Date: _______________ 

Seneca Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma 

By: ______________________________ Date: _______________ 

Seneca Nation of Indians

By: ______________________________ Date: _______________ 

Shinnecock Indian Nation

By: ______________________________ Date: _______________ 

PA-18 
High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Project Programmatic Agreement

Tonawanda Seneca Nation

By: ______________________________ Date: _______________ 

Tuscarora Seneca Nation

By: ______________________________ Date: _______________ 

The Preservation League of New York State 

By: ______________________________ Date: _______________ 

Preservation Buffalo Niagara 

By: ______________________________ Date: _______________ 

National Park Service/ Erie Canalway National Heritage Corridor 

By: ______________________________ Date: _______________ 

PA-19 
This page intentionally left blank. 
New York

New Jersey

Hudson River

§ ̈¦87 § ̈¦84

§ ̈¦287

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦280

§ ̈¦78

§ ̈¦95

§ ̈¦495

B e r g e n B e r g e n

E s s e x E s s e x

U n i o n U n i o n

P a s s a i c P a s s a i c

H u d s o n H u d s o n

M o r r i s M o r r i s

O r a n g e O r a n g e

U l s t e r U l s t e r

R o c k l a n d R o c k l a n d

D u t c h e s s D u t c h e s s

P u t n a m P u t n a m

W e s t c h e s t e r W e s t c h e s t e r

Q u e e n s Q u e e n s

B r o n x B r o n x

K i n g s K i n g s

N e w Y o r k N e w Y o r k

Ramapo

New York

Tuxedo

Cortlandt

Fishkill

Newburgh

Gardiner

Philipstown

Yorktown

Plattekill

Montgomery

La Grange

East Fishkill

Woodbury

Lloyd

Highlands

Kent

Cornwall

Greenburgh

New Windsor

Monroe

Stony Point

Wappinger

Yonkers

Haverstraw

Shawangunk

Mount Pleasant

Clarkstown

Putnam Valley

Orangetown

Blooming Grove

Chester

Poughkeepsie

Marlborough

Ossining

Hamptonburgh

New Castle

Somers

Crawford

New Paltz

Beacon

Peekskill

Scarsdale

Rochester

Eastchester

Mount Vernon

Pelham

Beekman

Pleasant Valley

Wallkill

New York

Putnam

Acres

§ ̈¦87

§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦787

§ ̈¦890

A l b a n y A l b a n y

D u t c h e s s D u t c h e s s

C o l u m b i a C o l u m b i a

U l s t e r U l s t e r

G r e e n e G r e e n e

R e n s s e l a e r R e n s s e l a e r

Cairo

Catskill

Ghent

Milan

Schodack

Saugerties

Colonie

Westerlo

Stanford

Lloyd

Esopus

Clinton

Gallatin

Guilderland

Coeymans

Washington

Ulster

Claverack

Bethlehem

Chatham

New Scotland

Red Hook

Athens

Berne

Taghkanic

Hyde Park

Greenville

Rhinebeck

Ancram

Coxsackie

Livingston

Albany

Nassau

New Baltimore

Hunter

Pine Plains

Dover

Brunswick

Knox

Union Vale La Grange

Kinderhook

Copake

Stuyvesant

Amenia

Pleasant Valley

New Paltz

Clermont

Greenport

Troy

East Greenbush

Stockport

Northeast

Poestenkill

North Greenbush

Germantown

Woodstock

Kingston

Poughkeepsie

Durham

Princetown

Plattekill

Jewett

Rensselaer

Hudson

Cohoes

Watervliet

Marbletown

PENNSYLVANIA

ONTARIO

(CANADA)

NEW YORK

6 5 4 3

1

2

KEY MAP

0 2.5 5 10

Miles

MAP 1 MAP 2

I Tier 1 EIS

High Speed Rail

Empire Corridor Program

*Alt. 125 as shown is a potential corridor used to analyze the potential operating characteristics, environmental impacts and cost for this speed (125 mph) threshold.

Existing Empire Corridor

Alternative 125 Corridor*

ATTACHMENT A
§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦88

§ ̈¦87

§ ̈¦787

§ ̈¦890

F u l t o n F u l t o n

O t s e g o O t s e g o

S a r a t o g a S a r a t o g a H e r k i m e r H e r k i m e r

A l b a n y A l b a n y

M o n t g o m e r y M o n t g o m e r y

S c h o h a r i e S c h o h a r i e

S c h e n e c t a d y S c h e n e c t a d y

R e n s s e l a e r R e n s s e l a e r

Root

Glen

Otsego

Knox

Colonie

Florida

Minden

Mayfield

Galway

Stark

Duanesburg

Greenfield

Glenville

Malta

Milton

Berne

Sharon

Warren

Palatine

Guilderland

Fairfield Caroga

Oppenheim

Seward

Perth

Hartwick

Carlisle

Ephratah

Wright

Mohawk

Wilton

Springfield

Stratford

Providence

Bleecker

Charlton

Danube

Westford

Ballston

Salisbury

Columbia

Herkimer

Exeter

Richfield

Albany

Cobleskill

Roseboom

Decatur

Fulton Bethlehem

Newport

Johnstown

Middlefield

Clifton Park

Charleston

Broadalbin

Canajoharie

Rotterdam

Manheim

Stillwater

Cherry Valley

Schuyler

Schoharie

Middleburgh

New Scotland

Amsterdam

German Flatts

Little Falls

Princetown

Richmondville

Worcester

Esperance

Saratoga Springs

Niskayuna

St Johnsville

Summit

Edinburg

Northampton

Schenectady Waterford

Cohoes

Gloversville

Milford Maryland

Winfield

Oneida

Lake

§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦81

§ ̈¦690

§ ̈¦481

§ ̈¦790

O n e i d a O n e i d a

O n o n d a g a O n o n d a g a

M a d i s o n M a d i s o n

O s w e g o O s w e g o

C a y u g a C a y u g a

H e r k i m e r H e r k i m e r

O t s e g o O t s e g o

C o r t l a n d C o r t l a n d

Vienna

Rome

Clay

Verona

Sullivan

Niles

Pompey

Lee

Eaton

Cicero

Brookfield

Lysander

Fabius

Manlius

Nelson

Floyd

Onondaga Paris

Lenox

Trenton

Marcy

Tully

Vernon

Madison

Otisco

Elbridge

Fenner

La Fayette

Lebanon Hamilton

Kirkland

Camillus

Marshall

Van Buren

Western

Russia

Lincoln

Litchfield

Ira

Annsville

Camden

Sangerfield

Salina

Steuben

Cazenovia

De Witt

Spafford

Skaneateles

Frankfort

Deerfield

Marcellus

Augusta

Schuyler

Utica Oneida

Westmoreland

Winfield

Syracuse

Georgetown

Stockbridge

DeRuyter

Smithfield

Whitestown

Bridgewater

New Hartford

Cato

Owasco

Sennett

Geddes

Remsen

Columbia

Sherrill

Granby

Scott

Constantia

Hastings

Cuyler

Plainfield

Schroeppel West Monroe

Hannibal

Edmeston

Richfield

PENNSYLVANIA

ONTARIO

(CANADA)

NEW YORK

6 5 4 3

1

2

KEY MAP

MAP 4

MAP 3

I 0 5 10 2.5

Miles

Tier 1 EIS

High Speed Rail

Empire Corridor Program

*Alt. 125 as shown is a potential corridor used to analyze the potential operating characteristics, environmental impacts and cost for this speed (125 mph) threshold.

Existing Empire Corridor

Alternative 125 Corridor*

ATTACHMENT A
Lake

Ontario

§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦390

§ ̈¦490 § ̈¦590 W a y n e W a y n e

M o n r o e M o n r o e

O n t a r i o O n t a r i o

C a y u g a C a y u g a

S e n e c a S e n e c a

L i v i n g s t o n L i v i n g s t o n

O s w e g o O s w e g o

Ira

Sodus

Galen

Phelps

Chili

Fayette

Cato

Tyre

Greece

Huron

Arcadia

Parma

Rose

Lima

Lyons

Butler

Victor

Sterling

Rush

Ogden

Wolcott

Hannibal

Riga

Mendon

Victory

York

Penfield

Seneca

Ontario

Macedon

Marion

Webster

Perinton Palmyra

Junius

Henrietta

Hopewell

Aurelius

Conquest

Sennett

Walworth

Caledonia

Rochester

Livonia Gorham

Fleming

Geneseo Bristol

Hamlin

Wheatland

Gates

Throop

Oswego

Niles

Avon

Canandaigua

Savannah

Farmington

Brutus

Manchester

Williamson

Owasco

Mentz

Pittsford

Waterloo

Springport

Seneca Falls

East Bloomfield

Richmond

Brighton

Montezuma

West Bloomfield

Geneva

Scipio

Auburn

Lysander

Irondequoit Sweden

East Rochester

Ontario

(Canada)

New York

(United States)

Lake

Erie

Lake

Ontario

Lake

Ontario

§ ̈¦90

§ ̈¦190

§ ̈¦490

§ ̈¦290

E r i e E r i e

N i a g a r a N i a g a r a

G e n e s e e G e n e s e e

O r l e a n s O r l e a n s

W y o m i n g W y o m i n g

M o n r o e M o n r o e

L i v i n g s t o n L i v i n g s t o n

E r i e E r i e

York

Barre Royalton

Elba

Riga

Darien

Batavia

Wilson

Buffalo

Elma

Shelby

Amherst

Hartland

Attica

Clarence

Le Roy

Alabama

Alden

Hamlin

Newstead

Porter

Newfane

Byron

Ridgeway

Gaines

Bennington

Cambria

Pavilion

Murray

Bethany

Sweden

Pembroke

Marilla

Stafford

Lancaster

Bergen

Clarkson

Alexander

Clarendon

Carlton

Perry

Yates

Kendall

Ogden

Caledonia

Wheatfield Pendleton

Covington

Aurora Wales Sheldon Leicester

Somerset

Warsaw

Lockport

Lewiston Albion

Middlebury

Oakfield

Grand Island

Hamburg

Cheektowaga

Orchard Park

Tonawanda

West Seneca

Wheatland

Niagara Falls

Niagara

Orangeville

North Tonawanda

Lackawanna

PENNSYLVANIA

ONTARIO

(CANADA)

NEW YORK

6 5 4 3

1

2

KEY MAP

I 0 5 10 2.5

Miles

Tier 1 EIS

High Speed Rail

Empire Corridor Program

MAP 6

MAP 5

*Alt. 125 as shown is a potential corridor used to analyze the potential operating characteristics, environmental impacts and cost for this speed (125 mph) threshold.

Existing Empire Corridor

Alternative 125 Corridor*

ATTACHMENT A
This page intentionally left blank. 
DRAFT PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT

HIGH SPEED RAIL EMPIRE CORRIDOR PROGRAM 

ATTACHMENT B 

Federally Recognized Native American Tribal Nations Participating in Section 106 Consultation 

Cayuga Nation

Delaware Nation

Delaware Tribe

Stockbridge-Munsee Community Band of Mohican Indians 

Oneida Indian Nation

Onondaga Nation 

Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe

Seneca Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma

Seneca Nation of Indians 

Shinnecock Indian Nation

Tonawanda Seneca Nation

Tuscarora Nation 
This page intentionally left blank. 
DRAFT PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT

HIGH SPEED RAIL EMPIRE CORRIDOR PROGRAM

ATTACHMENT C 

Routine Maintenance Activities within the Empire Corridor that are Exempt from Review

PURPOSE

Section 106 regulations require a “reasonable and good faith effort” to identify historic properties (36 CFR 800.4[b][1]). 

This attachment identifies routine maintenance activities that may reasonably be anticipated to have no potential for 

adverse effects on historic properties. This attachment defines categories of maintenance activities that do not warrant 

review unless deemed otherwise in the professional judgment of PIs. The following activities do not require review or 

documentation: 

1. Maintenance of railroad structures or infrastructure either within or outside of a Historic District where no 

substantial ground disturbance is required and the affected structures or infrastructure are:

a. Not individually listed or eligible for individual listing in the National Register of Historic Places; or

b. Have not been determined to be a contributing resource to a National Register listed or eligible Historic 

District.

2. Repairs to historic properties where such repairs are undertaken in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s 

Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (36 CFR 68). 

3. Replacement of structural elements or other components of historic bridges, culverts, or structures where the 

affected elements or components do not contribute to the historic significance of the structure AND; 

a. Where the replacement requires only minimal alterations to historic fabric of the structure; and

b. Where the alterations to the appearance of the historic structure are not visible from the public right of 

way. 

4. Replacement of ties or rail where there are no changes in vertical or horizontal geometry.

5. Repointing of masonry joints in bridges, culverts, or buildings where the color, texture, aggregate of the grout and 

the rake of the joint matches the existing.

6. Repairs to historic stone masonry culverts that are not individually listed in the National Register or have been 

previously determined to be individually eligible for listing in the National Register AND where the exterior 

appearance of the culvert, including existing stone masonry wing walls and headwalls, is unaffected.

7. Replacement of existing security cameras where no substantial visual alterations to the building or structure result 

from the replacement.

 
This page intentionally left blank. 
DRAFT PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT

HIGH SPEED RAIL EMPIRE CORRIDOR PROGRAM 

ATTACHMENT D 

 

Area of Potential Effect Delineation Guidelines

In accordance with Stipulation VI.A. of this PA, NYSDOT or other project applicant shall 

establish the Area of Potential Effects (APE) for undertakings covered by this PA. The project 

sponsor, in coordination with NYSDOT, is responsible for establishing and describing the APE in 

consultation with the New York State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and taking into 

consideration the views of any federally recognized tribal nation with an interest in the project 

area.

As defined in 36 CFR 800.16(d), an APE is “the geographic area or areas within which an 

undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic 

properties, if any such properties exist. The area of potential effects is influenced by the scale 

and nature of an undertaking and may be different for different kinds of effects caused by the 

undertaking.” 

Different APEs may be established for archeological properties and historic architectural 

properties: 

Archaeological Resources 

For archeological properties, an APE is typically established based on an undertaking’s potential 

for direct effects from ground-disturbing activities. 

The APE for archaeological properties is the area of ground proposed to be disturbed during 

construction of the undertaking, including grading, cut-and-fill, easements, staging areas, utility 

relocation, borrow pits, and biological mitigation areas, if any. 

Historic Architectural Resources 

The APE for historic architectural properties includes all categories of properties listed below that 

contain buildings, structures or objects more than 50 years of age at the time the cultural 

resources survey is completed:

1. Properties within the proposed right-of-way;

2. Properties where historic materials or associated landscape features would be 

demolished, moved, or altered by construction; 

3. Properties near the undertaking where railroad materials, features, and activities have not

been part of their historic setting and where the introduction of visual or audible elements 

may affect the use or characteristics of those properties that would be the basis for their 

eligibility for listing in the National Register; and

4. Properties near the undertaking that were either used by a railroad, served by a railroad, 

or where railroad materials, features, and activities have long been part of their historic 

setting, but only in such cases where the undertaking would result in a substantial change 

from the historic use, access, or noise and vibration levels that were present 50 years ago, 

or during the period of significance of a property, if different.

1 of 2 
For this project, a key phrase in the APE definition in the Section 106 regulations contained 

within 36 CFR 800.16(d) is “may...cause alterations in the character or use of historic 

properties” (emphasis added) because many of the undertakings involve the construction of 

additional, relocated, and/or high speed rail alongside existing railroads. In such cases, potential 

historic properties near the proposed undertaking historically had railroad features, materials, and 

activities within their setting that contributed to their character, or may even have been used by or 

served by the railroad. For example: 

• The character and use of a historic railroad passenger or freight depot or railroad bridge 

would not change unless it would be put out of service, destroyed, altered, or moved for 

the undertaking; 

• The character and use of an industrial building next to existing railroad tracks would not 

change, unless freight railroad service was an important association and the spur lines or 

loading areas would be removed by the undertaking; 

• The character and use of buildings would not change if they would be separated from 

the undertaking by an existing railroad; however, 

• The character of a non-railroad or non-industrial building would likely change if the 

building is visually sensitive and the proposed undertaking introduces an elevated grade 

separation or other large building or structure; 

• The use of a non-railroad or non-industrial building would likely change if the building 

is sensitive to noise, like a school, museum or library, and the frequency of noise or 

vibration events from passing trains is increased over historic-era railroad events. 

When delineating the APE, the project applicant shall follow the identification methodology 

described in Stipulation VI.B., which is different for archaeological properties and historic 

architectural properties. The project applicant shall take into account the nature of the proposed 

undertaking and whether or not it has the potential to affect the characteristics that might qualify 

the property for eligibility to the NRHP. Whenever an individual phase is revised (e.g., design 

changes, utility relocation, or additional off-site mitigation areas), the project applicant will 

determine if changes require modifying the APE. If an APE proves to be inadequate, NYSDOT 

or the project applicant is responsible for informing SHPO, federally recognized tribal nations, 

and any appropriate consulting parties in a timely manner of needed changes. The APE should be 

revised commensurate with the nature and scope of the changed potential effects. 

2 of 2 
 

NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY 

PROGRAM

WORK SCOPE SPECIFICATIONS

FOR

CULTURAL RESOURCE INVESTIGATIONS

ON 

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF 

TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS

March 2004

Attachment E to the Draft Programmatic Agreement for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program
THESE SPECIFICATIONS ARE

IN EFFECT FOR ALL STUDIES

CONDUCTED BY AND FOR THE

NEW YORK STATE MUSEUM AS

OF APRIL 1, 1979 AND UNTIL

FURTHER NOTICE.

(Established April 1, 1979)

(Revised April 1, 1980)

(Revised April 1, 1981)

(Revised April 1, 1984)

(Revised April 1, 1985)

(Revised April 1, 1986)

(Revised July 15, 1992)

(Revised December 10, 1994)

(Revised January 30, 1998)

(Revised March 31, 2004)

These specifications represent a refinement of guidelines that were developed by the State Museum in 1979 in consultation with the 

Department of Transportation and the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, and the several revisions made thereafter. 

These guidelines apply specifically to projects done for the New York State Department of Transportation.

Attachment E to the Draft Programmatic Agreement for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program
SED-CRSP Work Scope 2004

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 1

DEFINITIONS 2 

I. RECONNAISSANCE (PHASE 1) SURVEY 3

Application 3 

Purpose 3 

I.A.GENERAL METHODS: ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND ARCHITECTURAL SURVEYS 3 

Project Definition 3 

Background Research 3

Landowner Notification 4

I.B. RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIELD METHODS 4 

I.C. RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY ARCHITECTURAL FIELD METHODS 6 

I.D. RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY PRODUCT 8 

II. SITE EXAMINATION (PHASE II) 10 

Application 10 

Purpose 10 

Procedure for Requesting Site Examination 10 

Methods 10 

Recommendations 11 

Product 11 

III. DATA RECOVERY MITIGATION 12

III.A. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES 12 

Purpose 12 

Method 12 

Product 12 

III.B. BUILDINGS AND ENGINEERING PROPERTIES 12

Purpose 12 

Method 12 

Product 12 

APPENDIX A. 

Revised Section 106 Implementation Procedures

APPENDIX B. 

CRSP Reconnaissance (Phase 1) Survey Report Outline for DOT Projects

APPENDIX C.

CRSP Archaeological Site Examination (Phase II) Report Outline for DOT Projects

Attachment E to the Draft Programmatic Agreement for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program
SED-CRSP Work Scope 2004 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

APPENDIX D.

Standards for Cultural Resource Investigations and the Curation of Archaeological Collections by The New York State 

Archaeological Council

APPENDIX E.

Department of Transportation Cultural Resource Survey Checklist – Form A

APPENDIX F.

New York State Prehistoric Site Inventory Form

New York State Historic Site Inventory Form

New York State Historic Resource Inventory Form

New York State Historic District Form with Instructions

Historic Setting Analysis for Eligible/Listed Historic Districts

New York State Bridge Inventory Form and Guidelines for Evaluating Historic Bridges

 

Attachment E to the Draft Programmatic Agreement for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program
1SED-CRSP Work Scope 2004

INTRODUCTION

The work done for the New York State Department of Transportation (DOT) by the New York State Museum (NYSM), State 

Education Department’s (SED) Cultural Resource Survey Program (CRSP) is designed to help DOT meet its cultural resource

compliance needs under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended) for federally sponsored projects 

and Section 14.09 of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Law of 1980 for state sponsored projects. Under Section 106 DOT 

must “take into account the effect of the undertaking on any district, site, building, structure, or object that is included in or eligible for 

inclusion in the National Register.” Under Section 14.09, DOT must consult with the Commissioner of the Office of Parks, Recreation 

and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) “concerning the impact of the project if it appears that any aspect of the project may or will cause 

any change, beneficial or adverse, in the quality of historic, architectural, archaeological, or cultural property that is listed on the 

National Register of Historic Places or property listed on the State Register of Historic Places or is determined to be eligible for listing 

on the state register by the commissioner.” Standards and specifications described in this document apply to work conducted in 

accordance with both federal and state regulations. 

The purpose of cultural resource investigation services provided to DOT by CRSP is to identify and assess historic properties against 

the State and/or National Registers of Historic Places (S/NRHP) criteria if such properties exist within the DOT’s Area of Potential 

Effect (APE) that may be affected by DOT undertakings. The initial identification of archaeological sites is done on reconnaissance 

surveys, while recommendations for eligibility for listing on the S/NRHP generally occur after site examinations. Both of these phases 

of work are described below. Historic districts, buildings, structures, and objects are identified and evaluated during architectural 

surveys that generally are done concurrently with archaeological reconnaissance surveys. Procedures for architectural surveys, historic 

bridge inventories, historic setting analysis, and building/structure evaluation are also described below. Finally, if a historic property 

determined eligible for listing on the S/NRHP cannot be avoided and will be affected by a DOT undertaking, mitigation may include 

data recovery in the case of archaeological sites or Historic American Building Survey/Historic American Engineering Record 

(HABS/HAER) recordation for bridges or other structures, buildings, and objects. These are also described below.

The work done by CRSP for DOT is also designed to meet the goals of SED’s Strategic Plan as outlined in the NYSM Plan. 

Specifically, the work is designed to satisfy Museum Goal 4.1: “The Museum’s research advisory services and advisory and 

regulatory services to museums, historical societies, professionals, and government agencies will meet the highest standards, will be 

delivered in a timely and cost-effective fashion, and will assure accountability for assets held in the public trust.”

This document represents the ninth revision to work scope specifications for cultural resource investigations originally developed in 

1979 for CRSP. The previous revisions were made to update and clarify aspects of the work scope to reflect changes in professional 

standards, and SED, DOT, and/or State Historic Preservation Office/Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation

(SHPO/OPRHP) expectations for cultural resource investigations. The present document provides additional revisions to the work 

scope specifications for DOT projects based on changes in CRSP during the past several years brought about through negotiations 

between SED, DOT, and SHPO/OPRHP. Of particular importance are new Section 106 procedures established between DOT, 

SHPO/OPRHP, and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) based on revised regulations that went into effect in January 

2001(Appendix A). As a result of these changes, DOT has assumed responsibility for making recommendations for National Register 

eligibilities (through the CRSP) for historic properties. While these determinations were previously made by the SHPO/OPRHP, the 

revised 106 procedures specify review and concurrence by SHPO/OPRHP with recommendations presented in Cultural Resource 

Survey reports. Other revisions to the work scope were developed to assist the DOT with project planning/design and effect 

recommendations, including guidelines for historic setting analysis for historic districts that the CRSP recommends as eligible for the 

S/NRHP. New report guidelines have also been developed for documenting and evaluating bridges based on the statewide DOT 

Historic Bridge Inventory completed in 2002. 

The reconnaissance survey report outline (Appendix B) was developed in 1995 and 1996 by the Report Quality Task Force that was to 

develop a report outline that focused on presenting information important to the goals of CRSP projects for DOT as summarized 

above and in Appendix A. DOT has required CRSP to include the page number of each historic resource form, prehistoric and 

historic site form, the table summarizing the location of S/NRHP eligible and listed buildings/structures in the table of contents. The 

new site exam report outline (Appendix C) was developed with the same goal by CRSP with input from DOT and State University of 

New York.

This document also reflects the adoption by SHPO/OPRHP in September 1995 of the New York Archaeological Council’s (NYAC) 

Standards for Cultural Resource Investigations and Curation of Archaeological Collections (1994). As indicated by SHPO/OPRHP, 

the NYAC standards for investigation have been recommended for use by the New York State Board for Historic Preservation and 

have also been reviewed by the National Park Service, which found them to be consistent with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards 

and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation (36 CFR Part 800.)

Attachment E to the Draft Programmatic Agreement for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program
SED-CRSP Work Scope 2004

2 

Whereas previous versions of the CRSP work scope provided detailed guidelines for cultural resource field investigations, the present 

document refers to the attached NYAC standards (Appendix D) for guidance on archaeological fieldwork and the Report Quality Task 

Force report outline. The document also provides details on requirements specific to DOT projects. All questions regarding these 

requirements should be addressed to the director of CRSP or his designate prior to initiation of work assignments.

DEFINITIONS

Area of Potential Effect (APE): The geographic area or areas in which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause changes in the 

character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist. The area of potential effect is influenced by the scale and nature of 

an undertaking and may be different for different kinds of effects caused by the undertaking. DOT provides the APE to SED in the 

initial project description.

Environmental Analysis Bureau: The office within the New York Department of Transportation that coordinates and manages the 

statewide Cultural Resources Survey Program.

Evaluation: Process by which the significance and integrity of a historic property are judged and eligibility for National Register 

listing is determined.

Historic Context: An organizing structure for interpreting history that groups information about historic properties that share a 

common theme, common geographical area, and a common time period. The development of historic contexts is a foundation for 

decisions about the identification and evaluation of historic properties, based on comparative historic significance.

Historic Property: Any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure or object.

Identification: Process through which information is gathered about historic properties.

Integrity: The unimpaired ability of a property to convey its historical significance.

Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP): The office within New York State Government charged with 

overseeing the state’s historic preservation program and assisting with compliance with Section 14.09 of the Parks, Recreation and 

Historic Preservation Law for 100% state funded projects. 

Map Documented Structure (MDS): Buildings or structures documented by historic maps during background research and identified 

through field inspection as no longer standing. MDS locations are indicators of historic archaeological site sensitivity. 

Project Area: Within the APE, area associated with actual ground disturbance and/or alterations to historic properties, including 

setting or landscape features.

Regional Cultural Resource Coordinator (CRC): In each NYSDOT Region, the person designated with responsibility for 

coordinating the Region’s Cultural Resource Survey Program and procedures associated with compliance with state and federal 

statutes protecting cultural resources.

Section 106: Implementing regulation of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 USC 470), pertaining to NYSDOT 

projects that are federally licensed, permitted or funded.

Section 14.09: Implementing regulations of the NYS Historic Preservation Act of 1980 (Chapter 354 of Parks, Recreation and 

Historic Preservation Law), pertaining to NYSDOT projects that are entirely state licensed, permitted or funded. These regulations 

parallel the federal Section 106 regulations and apply to projects with no federal agency involvement. 

Significance: Importance of a historic property as defined by the National Register criteria in one or more areas of significance. 

State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO/OPRHP): Established under the National Historic Preservation Act, the SHPO administers 

the national program at the state level. Under Section 106, the SHPO reviews projects that are federal undertakings. In New York 

State, the SHPO resides in the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation. 

Attachment E to the Draft Programmatic Agreement for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program
SED-CRSP Work Scope 2004

3 

I. RECONNAISSANCE (PHASE I) SURVEY

APPLICATION: For survey of areas of potential affects from DOT capital projects.

PURPOSE: Reconnaissance surveys are designed to:

1. locate and identify on project maps all existing prehistoric and historic archaeological sites (sites), to the extent possible 

given current professional standards for field work, and locate, inventory/photograph, and identify on project maps standing 

buildings / structures (including bridges and other engineering features) districts, and objects within the project area that are 

eligible for listing on the S/NRHP , and

2. provide adequate information on buildings/structures for the SHPO/OPRHP and FHWA concurrence to the S/NRHP 

eligibility recommendations or require site examination (Phase II testing; see Section II) if additional information is needed 

for that recommendation. 

Definition of the survey APE includes all areas that may be disturbed by the proposed project including settings of districts, buildings, 

and structures and their associated landscape features. 

I.A. GENERAL METHODS

ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND ARCHITECTURAL SURVEYS

PROJECT DEFINITION: A project map or maps and Form A with project information will be provided by DOT for each project. 

This information will be provided to the investigator by the CRSP director or his designate at the time of project assignment. 

Reconnaissance surveys may include only architecture or archaeology but usually include both. In some cases only a Historic Setting 

Analysis will be completed if S/NRHP eligibilities have previously been determined or if it is a S/NRHP listed property. The type of 

survey and the APE is determined by the DOT Regional Cultural Resource Coordinator (CRC) and specified on the Form A (Cultural 

Resource Survey Checklist, Appendix E).

1. Review project maps and the project information contained on the Form A. The project area should be clearly plotted by the 

CRC on the project map(s). At least two sets of duplicate survey maps should be provided by DOT, one for field use and one 

for the working file of the investigator that will be used to develop the project map for the final report. Duplicate maps 

should be obtained directly from the CRC.

2. Discuss deficiencies or ambiguities in the project-area definitions with the appropriate CRC. If the CRC is unable to clearly 

define project area limits on project maps, the investigator should do so, after consultation with CRC, and obtain CRC’s 

written concurrence that the project area definition is adequate for their purposes.

3. Immediately report changes to or clarifications of the project area in writing to the CRSP director or his designate. No 

changes in survey scope that will affect the project budget or schedule should be made without written authorization from the 

CRSP Project Director.

BACKGROUND RESEARCH: Conduct background research before the initiation of fieldwork to develop prehistoric and historic 

contexts for the project area. Contexts are used to assess the project area’s sensitivity for prehistoric and historic archaeological sites 

and help to assess the S/NRHP eligibility of districts, buildings, structures, and objects in the project area. Background research 

involves several steps:

1. Site, Building/Structure, and Report File Checks. File searches must include the SHPO/OPRHP/New York State Museum

 (NYSM) statewide site and structure files, the OPRHP and NYSM report files, local museum and university site and report 

files, files of county and town historians, local libraries and Heritage Areas.

a. Review inventories of previously recorded archaeological sites and cultural resources survey and archaeological 

investigation reports to determine if cultural resources have been previously recorded in and/or near (generally 

within 3.2 km) the project area. Include an area in the site file checks large enough relative to the size of the project 

area to determine what kinds of landforms and soil conditions are most sensitive for the presence of prehistoric 

archaeological sites in the region for comparison with the project area. Compile a table or list of previously reported 

Attachment E to the Draft Programmatic Agreement for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program
SED-CRSP Work Scope 2004

4 

archaeological sites for inclusion in the report. Plot the location of all previously identified sites with their name and 

number within the project area, previous cultural resource surveys and archaeological investigations within the 

project area on the project map and prepare a list of those surveys and summarize their results for inclusion in the 

project report.

b. Contact SHPO/OPRHP and arrange an appointment to examine building/structure inventory files and discuss the 

project with the SHPO/OPRHP regional National Register staff. Information from these sources is critical for 

determining previously identified S/NRHP eligible historic properties, as well as properties already on, nominated 

to, or proposed for nomination to the S/NRHP or currently listed in the State inventory. 

c. Obtain complete copies of all documents and maps on file at SHPO/OPRHP for properties already on, nominated to, 

or proposed for nomination to the S/NRHP or in the State inventory. Plot S/NRHP eligible, listed or nominated 

properties on the survey map with appropriate labels.

2. Documentary Research. Conduct research on the project area’s environmental and cultural settings to help develop

prehistoric and historic contexts, define field environment, and locate actual or potential site locations. Focus environmental 

research on the identification of the kinds of landforms and soils that are located in the project area and the influence of these 

on the project area’s sensitivity for archaeological sites. Thoroughly assess the project area for the presence of alluvial and 

colluvial deposits with the potential for buried late Pleistocene and Holocene surfaces. Consult the literature on regional 

prehistoric settlement patterns to aid in the development of the general prehistoric context for the project area. Use regional 

settlement pattern models with the site file and environmental information and information on disturbances and current land 

use obtained during the initial project walkover (see below) to develop a sensitivity assessment for prehistoric archaeological 

sites in the project area.

Consult appropriate primary and secondary sources on local and regional history to develop an historic context for the project area. 

Identify the major historic trends, events and activities and themes, and their potential or known expression in the project area. Assess 

the potential of the project area to contain historic archaeological resources that predate historic maps. Sources consulted should 

include the State Museum, Library and Archives, SHPO/OPRHP, county and local libraries and records of historical societies, town 

and county clerks, historian and residents. Identify potential historic archaeological sites in the project area including the yards of 

historic standing buildings/structures and no-longer standing buildings/structures (Map Documented Structures [MDSs]) from historic 

maps and other documentary information. Plot all potential MDS locations on the project area map as a circle and label each with a 

unique number or letter designation. Compile a table listing these potential resources indicating the historic maps on which each MDS 

is plotted and any identifying label on those maps for inclusion in the report. Use all of these sources of information with information 

on disturbances and current land use obtained during the initial walk over of the project area (see below) to determine the project 

area’s sensitivity for archaeological sites.

LANDOWNER NOTIFICATION: Distribute landowner notification letters, obtained from the CRC, in advance of field work to all 

landowners to inform them of the pending survey. In all cases, permission of the landowner is needed to enter onto private property 

for the purposes of this research. If no owner or tenant can be found, and a letter of notice and explanation is left at the residence, 

exterior inspection and archeological testing may be conducted, but no interior inspections (except of ruins or open and unused 

outbuildings) should be made. Recording and photographing executed from public lands, such as highway right-of-way, may be 

conducted without landowner permission. However, it is a matter of courtesy to inform the landowner or occupant of the building of 

the purpose of your recording before proceeding.

In the event that a landowner or tenant denies access to a property contact the CRC immediately and inform her/him of the problem. 

Inform the CRC if lack of access to that property will affect the results of the survey. The CRC and/or other regional DOT staff will 

work to obtain property access permissions. This information should be included in the report.

For projects on Native American reservation lands, consult with the CRC at the time of project initiation. Surveys on reservations will 

be conducted in accordance with the procedures and scope acceptable to the involved Native American nation.

I.B. RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY

ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIELD METHODS

Archaeological surveys must be directed by an individual who meets current NPS standards (36 CFR Part 61) for professional 

archaeologists.

Attachment E to the Draft Programmatic Agreement for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program
SED-CRSP Work Scope 2004

5 

Fie ld investigations for the identification of archaeological sites take place in several steps:

1. Conduct a walkover survey of the entire project area and take detailed notes on observed natural and manmade features, 

visible evidence for sites, and disturbances that will allow for a more effective subsurface survey design. Assess the nature 

and extent of any disturbances, and eliminate from subsurface testing only those areas where there is no potential for intact 

archaeological resources. Take several general-view photographs showing the project’s setting. Plot the position and angle of 

each photograph on the project map(s). These photographs must show field conditions, not just the road and its shoulders. 

Photograph and plot on the map(s) areas of disturbance. Determine if buried utilities are located in the project area that have 

caused disturbance that might be impacted by subsurface testing procedures. If buried utilities are present or anticipated 

where subsurface testing is planned, contact the Underground Facilities Protective Organization (UFPO) at 1-800-962-7962 

at least two days prior to excavation.

2. Interview local landowners and residents to obtain information on previously unreported archaeological sites.

3. Refine previous site information on the project map based on new information. Plot all additional sites identified during 

preliminary field survey on the project map and add to appropriate lists. Compile an interview informant list, including name, 

address, telephone, number and brief summary of information supplied for inclusion in the project report.

4. Develop and implement a survey strategy based on Section 2.3 of the NYAC Standards for Cultural Resource Investigations

(Appendix D). Take into account all information gathered to this point in the development of the strategy including 

background research, the walkover survey and the sensitivity assessment for prehistoric and historic archaeological sites.

a. When there is a potential for buried late Pleistocene and Holocene surfaces, design a deep testing plan to sample 

those deposits for archaeological sites. This plan may include mechanical excavations, hand excavations, or some 

combination thereof. The plan should be reviewed with the CRSP director or his designate prior to implementation. 

OSHA safety standards must be followed in all deep-testing plans.

b. If cultural material is encountered in only one shovel test pit, excavate additional shovel test pits to ensure that it 

does not represent a larger site. Begin additional shovel test excavations at one-half the interval between the find 

and the next sterile shovel test. Excavate additional shovel tests closer to and/or farther from the initial positive 

shovel test as necessary to ensure that the initial positive shovel test did not intersect a larger site.

c. When an archaeological site is found its lateral boundaries must be defined within the project area. Excavate 

additional shovel tests or do additional surface survey transects as appropriate to determine how close artifact 

deposits extend to the road. Extend the additional survey to the maximum extent of obvious disturbance associated 

with the road (e.g., shoulder, drainage ditch, road edge) and to the outside edge of the project area. Extend testing 

onto the shoulder when possible if a site has deep deposits that may extend under disturbance associated with the 

shoulder. If survey conditions prevent additional survey, and site boundaries are based on some other criterion, that 

criterion must be clearly described and justified in the report.

d. Define the vertical extent and physical integrity of the site to the extent possible with reconnaissance survey field 

techniques. Determine the depth of artifactual deposits and identify from where in the soil profile artifacts originate. 

The report must include a brief description of the site’s soils and a statement as to where in the soil profile artifacts 

originate. In some situations (e.g., alluvial or colluvial settings), it might be necessary to provide a statement as to 

whether testing methods were sufficient to document the full potential vertical extent of the site.

e. If numerous sites are found during a survey, and a procedure is followed to define horizontal and vertical boundaries 

for all of the sites, this procedure should be explained before the individual site descriptions. However, this does not 

obviate the need for explanation of the implementation of that procedure in each site description. For example, if site 

boundaries exclude nearby positive shovel test pits or surface finds, the rationale for these exclusions must be 

explained in the site description. If boundaries are drawn that extend significantly beyond the locations of positive 

shovel test pits or surface finds, this needs to be explained. Site boundaries should include all portions of a site, not 

just those portions that are recommended for additional investigations. Although testing is restricted to the project 

area, indicate if the site appears to extend outside the project area boundary.

f. Each site identified must be assigned a NYSM site file number and a name. Submit a NYS site inventory form to 

the CRSP director or his designate prior to report submission so that a NYSM number can be assigned. Site names, 

Attachment E to the Draft Programmatic Agreement for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program
SED-CRSP Work Scope 2004

6 

numbers, and boundaries, as well as test units and their numbers must be noted on the project area map regardless of 

whether or not the sites are considered to be potentially eligible for listing on the S/NRHP.

5. At the completion of the survey analyze all data sets to determine if sites that are potentially eligible for S/NRHPs are present 

in the project area. The analysis of artifactual and other information must be done under the prehistoric and/or historic 

context developed for the project. This analysis should also include information on site integrity to the extent possible with 

reconnaissance survey data. Use this analysis to make recommendations as to whether or not a site examination is needed to 

determine the eligibility of the site for S/NRHP.

A site does not require site examination (Phase II testing) if it does not have the potential to yield important information 

about prehistory or history, if its context is disturbed, or if it lacks provenience or association. Report any potentially 

significant site to the CRSP director or his designate to determine the need for site examination through a site exam request 

(see Section II). This information will be presented to DOT to determine whether the site(s) can be avoided by design 

revisions.

Historic Setting Analysis should be applied when a S/NRHP eligible district is identified as a result of reconnaissance survey. 

Historic Setting Analysis alone may also be conducted for existing S/NRHP listed and eligible districts, or at the request of 

the Regional Cultural Resource Coordinator. 

I.C. RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY 

ARCHITECTURAL FIELD METHODS

Architectural surveys must be done by an architectural historian who meets current NPS standards (36 CFR Part 61) and has been 

approved by SED, DOT, and OPRHP. The credentials of the architectural historian must be on file at SED, DOT, and SHPO/OPRHP.

Architectural fieldwork is accomplished through several steps:

1. Conduct a walkover survey of the project area to correlate existing buildings/structures with those shown on historic maps. 

Determine which buildings/structures is at least 50 years old and record street or fire address for each property. 

2. Interview local landowners and residents to identify the building/structure’s age and history or clarify information already 

noted for historic properties where such information is ambiguous or contradictory.

3. Identify which buildings/structures are eligible for the S/NRHP and record information needed to complete the New York 

State DOT Historic Resource Inventory Form (Appendix F) with appropriate photograph(s). Determine if there are eligible 

S/NRHP historic districts in the project area or partially within the project area but extend beyond project limits. Consult with 

SHPO/OPRHP staff when proposing an historic district or expanding an existing historic district. Record proposed

boundaries of the recommended district on the project survey map. Complete an historic district form (Appendix F) with 

appropriate photo documentation. Inventory all eligible buildings/structures and/or districts unless they have been previously 

inventoried. Provide updated photographs of existing National S/NRHP listed or eligible properties or districts. Identify 

major changes to properties since original inventory that could affect existing eligibility status. Include the original form and 

new photographs in the report. 

4. Photograph all buildings/structures in Historic Districts within the project area and all buildings/structures that are at least 50 

years old within the project area or that have property extending into the project area and accurately plot them on project map 

and label with street or fire addresses. Photograph special architectural details of each building/structure, its surroundings and 

visual character relative to other properties and environmental features (cultural and natural), and the area of impact and 

relationship to the highway. Plot photo angles on the map and key them to the photographs within the report. Photograph 

outbuildings with associated buildings/structures. Photograph isolated outbuildings as primary buildings (unassociated).

5. When a S/NRHP eligible district is identified as a result of reconnaissance survey, Historic Setting Analysis should be 

applied. Historic Setting Analysis alone may also be requested for existing S/NRHP listed and eligible districts. Conduct 

detailed site-specific research and document contributing features of the district, including elements of the setting and spatial 

relationships between buildings and the natural/ cultural landscape. Photograph contemporary views of the streetscape for 

comparison with historic photographs, including vegetation and landscape features, street furnishings, buildings and 

structures. Provide mapping of the district that shows contributing elements of the setting, and buildings/structures identified 

Attachment E to the Draft Programmatic Agreement for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program
SED-CRSP Work Scope 2004

7 

by street address and function. Photographic views, summary tables of historic landscape features, and other descriptive 

information should be included in the Historic District inventory. Guidance for Historic Setting Analysis is provided in 

Appendix F. 

6. The method of survey and reporting historic bridges is different from the previous work scopes. In 2002 a statewide 

inventory of historic bridges was completed. The three-year project updates a previous inventory of pre-1925 bridges 

conducted in the 1980s. The scope of the current inventory includes bridges built prior to 1961 that are located on public 

highways, including both state and locally-owned bridges. Over 6,600 bridges have been evaluated for eligibility for listing in 

the S/NRHP. A total statewide population of nearly 600 historic bridges has been identified. 

The following documents were prepared as part of the Historic Bridge Inventory project: 

• Historic Bridge Database

The database contains collected data and a Historic Determination, the eligibility status, for each inventoried bridge. The 

Historic Bridge Database was incorporated into the existing database for DOT’s Bridge Inventory and Inspection System 

(WinBolts). Available from DOT Regional Cultural Resource Coordinators. 

• Contextual Study of New York State’s Pre-1961 Bridges, November 1999 

The contextual study establishes a framework for understanding the historic and engineering significance of New York's 

bridges. The study includes an overview of national trends in bridge engineering, the history of bridge design and 

construction in New York State, and the development of New York's transportation networks. 

• Evaluation of S/NRHP Eligibility, January 2002

The evaluation report presents background information on the purpose and scope of the inventory, chronology of project 

activities, evaluation criteria, and methodology for evaluating S/NRHP eligibility. Recommendations for bridges selected for 

field survey are discussed within the context of bridge type. 

• Historic Bridge Management Plan, September 2003

The Management Plan presents practices and recommendations consistent with the needs of transportation and preservation, 

that NYSDOT and other bridge owners can apply to their historic bridges. 

If a bridge was included in the inventory of bridges built prior to 1961 include only the S/NRHP eligibility in the cultural 

resource survey report. This inventory is available from the CRC. No bridge inventory forms are needed for bridges 

previously evaluated even if those structures are to be removed. 

If the bridge has not been evaluated, a bridge inventory form (Appendix F) with photograph(s) is required only if the bridge 

is eligible individually or as part of a district. Information on the bridge, such as construction date, type, length, etc., may be 

gathered from the WinBolts database or the CRC. Evaluation of the bridge within the context of bridge type and sub-group is 

detailed in the NYSDOT Guidelines for Evaluating Historic Bridges (Appendix F) and the January 2002 report Evaluation of 

National Register Eligibility: Task C3 of the Historic Bridge Inventory and Management Plan prepared for the DOT and 

FHWA by Mead & Hunt, Inc. If there is any question as to how to present a bridge in the report contact the CRSP director or 

his designate. If the BIN (bridge identification number) is not known, the investigator should obtain the BIN from the CRC 

and include the number in the report.

Note that bridges determined not individually S/NRHP eligible in the bridge inventory may be contributing features of a 

historic district. If an inventoried bridge is located within or adjacent to a historic district, it should be evaluated for its 

potential as a contributing resource to the district. 

Culverts were outside the scope of the bridge inventory and were not evaluated. Although usually not S/NRHP eligible, there 

are cases where a culvert may be S/NRHP eligible, such as a stone arch culvert or a former raceway. Culverts may be 

contributing features of a historic district.

7. Follow the minimal standards for documentation for buildings/structures inside the project area to ensure that sufficient 

visual information is available in the report for review and to support the S/NRHP eligibility and non-eligibility 

recommendations. 

a) Documentation Procedures:

1. One representative photograph is sufficient for a building/structure when a building is clearly

architecturally significant because of design and integrity unless vegetation obscures the view. The 

relationship of the property and roadway should always be depicted in the photograph. An angled frontal 

shot is suggested. If a building is architecturally simple, a single photograph that captures two facades is 

sufficient. Additional photographs should be taken as needed if obstructions are present. Each qualitatively 

Attachment E to the Draft Programmatic Agreement for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program
SED-CRSP Work Scope 2004

8 

different face, whether contributing to or detracting from the over-all style or integrity of the

building/structure, should be clearly shown in photographs.

2. If the architectural historian finds a building/structure’s eligibility difficult to illustrate additional

photographs should be taken as follows: 

The level of detail photography depends on the amount and type of detail present, the degree to which it 

already shows adequately in the representative photography and the degree to which detail is significant in 

the evaluation of architectural significance.

(Example: If an ornate Victorian house that has no intrusive modifications and is in a good state of 

preservation, individual photographs of the many architectural details are not necessary. However, if a 

house with aluminum siding, awnings, a car port and concrete faced foundation has evidence that suggests 

an early 19th century origin, photographs of windows, porches, trim and hardware may be necessary to 

confirm or reject the early date and provide a basis for determination of the S/NRHP eligibility or noneligibility for the property.)

Usually exterior documentation is sufficient, particularly when the architectural characteristics are the 

major contributing factors to significance. However, interior photographs should be provided if exterior 

photographs alone do not capture unique features that make the property S/NRHP eligible.

(Example: If the exterior of the building does not have architecturally significant features and it has no 

remnant exterior features indicating an early construction date, and yet is supposed, from documentary 

evidence, to be a house standing in 1767, interior details [doors, moldings, floors] or structural features 

[hand-hewn beams, rose-head nails] may be the only information on which to base a description of the 

resource and from which to facilitate an evaluation of historic significance.) The level of internal 

documentation depends on the subject and the need for detailed information. Photographs are part of this 

documentation.

b) Technical aspects of the recording process

1. All photography should be in color. A standard 3.5 x 5 inch print size is adequate. Digital photos are not 

acceptable.

2. Efforts should be made to “match” old or “historic” views with duplicate views taken as part of the field of 

study. (This greatly aids evaluation of integrity and helps document contributing elements in the

environment or setting.)

3. All photographs should be affixed to the pages of the report with double sided cellophane tape (a single 2 

inch strip is adequate).

4. To the extent possible, the bulk resulting from photographs in the report should be evenly distributed; i.e. 

one photo in the center of the page; one photo on top half of page, then later one photo on bottom half of 

another page; two photos to a page (top and bottom); three photos to a page; etc. so that the report lies flat 

for binding.

8. All aboveground cultural resources greater than 50 years old identified within the project area should be evaluated for 

S/NRHP eligibility: 

1. categorize the property type (district, building, structure, object); 

2. determine the historic context represented; 

3. determine significance under National Register Criteria A, B, C, and/or D, and identify the applicable 

criteria; 

4. determine if the property retains integrity, the ability to convey its significance through physical features. 

Evaluations should be made within the historic context(s) developed as a result of background research and with reference to 

local, State, or National level of significance. Note that the project area should not be considered in isolation as a level of 

significance (i.e. a building is not eligible because it is the only example of its style/ type/ period within the project area). 

Attachment E to the Draft Programmatic Agreement for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program
SED-CRSP Work Scope 2004

9 

Historic Resource Inventory forms and Historic District forms should include a definitive statement of eligibility, reflecting 

the evaluation process. Aboveground resources that do not meet the National Register Criteria for Evaluation should clearly 

be identified as not eligible. Consult National Register Bulletin #15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for 

Evaluation for guidance.

I.D. RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY

PRODUCT

The outline for CRSP reconnaissance survey reports is attached (Appendix B). Follow this outline in the preparation of the report. 

Mark maps or descriptions specifically locating sites “Confidential, Not for Public Distribution”. Submit one unbound copy of each 

report to the CRSP director or his designate for review according to the project schedule. Include with the draft report all maps, 

appropriately highlighted, and one copy of all photographs. After review by the CRSP director or his designate make all necessary 

revisions and submit six (6) bound copies of the report, one on acid-free paper, to the CRSP director or his designate. Each report 

should contain original copies of photographs and project maps. Additional copies of the report may be requested for distribution to 

DOT and other interested parties involved in the consultation process.

Attachment E to the Draft Programmatic Agreement for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program
SED-CRSP Work Scope 2004

10 

II. SITE EXAMINATION (PHASE II)

APPLICATION: To determine S/NRHP eligibility of archaeological sites in the project area. 

PURPOSE: To present all information necessary to determine eligibility for listing on the S/NRHP, including, but not limited to, 

horizontal and vertical extent of the site in the project area, the types of information the site can produce (subsurface features, 

postmold patterns, charcoal for dating, ceramic samples, information on technology, etc.), the temporal and cultural affiliation(s) of 

the site and its physical, prehistoric and/or historic integrity, and an identification of the context(s) and research questions, if any, that 

may be addressed through data recovery. Eligibility requirements for the S/NRHP are presented in National Register Bulletin 15 and 

36.

PROCEDURE FOR REQUESTING SITE EXAMINATION: A request for site examination must be prepared for SED prior to the 

initiation of site exams, regardless of remaining project funds, since DOT may be able to avoid a site with change in project design. 

Prepare a request in writing for the CRSP director or his designate. Although delays are common after a site has been located and 

before funding is approved for site exams, the following procedures must be followed unless otherwise directed.

Steps followed for site exam request:

1. Prepare a site examination request that includes:

• descriptions of the site’s environmental context, previous excavations, artifacts, and features

• a statement on the site’s physical integrity

• a prehistoric and/or historic context and a statement on the site’s research potential

• proposed site exam methodology including test unit placement consistent with Section 3.0 of the NYAC 

Standards for Cultural Resource Investigations (Appendix D)

• appropriate portion of the project map depicting location of site and excavation units of previous investigations 

in relation to the project area boundaries

• cost and time estimate required to complete the proposed site examination. Do not include this in the Phase I 

survey report.

2. Include the site examination request in the Phase I report under the recommendation section. The cost and time 

estimate is submitted to DOT at the same time, but as a separate document.. The site exam request contained in the 

report and the separate proposed budget will be forwarded to the DOT Environmental Analysis Bureau (EAB) and 

the CRC. 

3. The CRSP director or his designate will coordinate with EAB and the CRC to determine if the site can be avoided.

4. The schedule, including a revised due date, and budget approval will be coordinated by SED, EAB, and CRC.

5. After the review is completed, and if it is determined that the site cannot be avoided, the CRC will submit a Form A 

to the CRSP director authorizing the site examination. The CRSP director will then authorize initiation of the site 

exam per contractual agreement with the investigator’s institution.

Once the site exam has been approved, it is critical that the work be done according to the approved work plan, budget, and schedule. 

Any deviation must be approved in writing by the CRSP director or his designate.

METHODS: 

1. Develop and implement a site examination strategy based on Section 3.0 of the NYAC Standards for Cultural 

Resource Investigations (Appendix D).

2. Notify landowner of pending site examination. Discuss with the landowner a deed of gift for the artifact collection.

3. When premature termination of investigations, either vertically or horizontally, is caused by conditions or situations 

that are under the control of either the SED or the CRC, immediately notify the CRSP director or his designate.

Attachment E to the Draft Programmatic Agreement for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program
SED-CRSP Work Scope 2004

11 

4. Test units should be distributed to include a determination of the limits of site productivity in the direction of the 

edge of pavement.

5. Boundaries of the site should be depicted on the project area map. Refine site limits by testing results and include an 

assessment of the extent to which significant deposits approach the road.

6. Contact CRC to obtain highway mapping for the site area. If the CRC is unable to provide mapping, prepare site 

maps that approximate highway map design and include highway, environmental, and cultural landmarks.

7. Prepare detailed artifact inventories, with descriptive cultural and provenience information. Consult appropriate 

experts during the identification and evaluation process. Summaries of expert opinion should be adequately cited in 

the site analysis notes.

8. Prepare line drawings of test unit profiles for inclusion in the report to illustrate soil descriptions and discussions of 

physical integrity.

9. Photograph site areas, excavation units, features and artifacts if illustrative of site significance.

10. Promptly and completely backfill all excavations unless written permission has been obtained from the landowner to 

delay backfilling or to leave excavation open. (During excavation, all appropriate OSHA specifications must be 

complied with, without exception.)

RECOMMENDATIONS: Sites should be evaluated for eligibility following procedures outlined in National Register Bulletin #36: 

Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Archeological Properties. To qualify for eligibility under National Register Criterion D, a 

property must have information that can contribute to our understanding of human history of any period, and the information must be 

considered important. The property must also have the necessary configuration of data sets and integrity to address important research 

questions. 

Recommendations should include an explicit statement of S/NRHP eligibility. For sites that do not qualify, the report should state that 

the site is not eligible and no further investigation is necessary. If the site meets the National Register criteria, the significance 

assessment should include discussion of the rationale for evaluation of collected data and justification for a definitive recommendation 

that the site is eligible. Recommendations for avoidance of significant sites should address requirements for protection of the site 

before, during, and after construction to avoid accidental impact. Data recovery should be recommended in the event that an eligible 

site with additional research potential cannot be avoided.

PRODUCT: Follow the outline for CRSP site examination reports (Appendix C). This outline should be adjusted as appropriate 

though consultations with the CRSP director or his designate when more than one site examination is included in the report. Mark 

maps or descriptions specifically locating sites “Confidential, Not for Public Distributions”. Submit one unbound copy of each 

report to the CRSP director or his designate for review according to the project schedule. Include all maps, appropriately highlighted, 

and one unbound copy of all photographs. Make all necessary revisions to the report based on comments by the CRSP director or his 

designate and submit six (6) bound copies of the report, one acid-free paper, to the CRSP director or his designate. Additional copies 

of reports may be requested for distribution to DOT or other parties to the consultation process. Each report should contain original 

copies of photographs and project maps.

Attachment E to the Draft Programmatic Agreement for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program
SED-CRSP Work Scope 2004

12 

MITIGATION (PHASE III) 

APPLICATION: An investigation conducted when historic properties have been determined eligib le for the S/NRHP and DOT cannot 

avoid impact. Archaeological site may also involve alternative mitigation activities in lieu of and/or in conjunction with the more 

standard technical data recovery treatments and reports, as provided in Section 4.0 of the NYAC Standards. 

III.A. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE DATA RECOVERY

PURPOSE: To excavate the designated site within project limits to obtain the data necessary to describe and interpret the site, address 

research topics developed in the Data Recovery Plan (see below), and preserve the information that would be lost to construction 

impact.

METHOD: The investigator will be provided with a general project plan showing the limits of impact. The investigator will be 

responsible for developing a Data Recovery Plan based on Section 4.0 of the NYAC Standards for Cultural Resource Investigations

that includes research design, methodology, schedule, and budget. SED, DOT, and OPRHP/SHPO will review the plan and request 

revision if warranted. SED will provide directions for any other form of mitigation. Once approved, the data recovery plan will be 

executed according to project schedule.

PRODUCT: Submit an end-of-field letter briefly summarizing the investigations and results to the CRSP director or his designate 

within four (4) weeks after the completion of fieldwork. The CRSP director or his designate will submit this letter to DOT. The formal 

report is due within one year of fieldwork completion. Submit one copy of the draft report to SED for review. When approved by SED 

an additional copy of the draft report will be provided to DOT for review. After review by SED and DOT is completed and revisions 

resulting from these reviews have been made by the investigator, submit six (6) bound copies with original photographs to SED, one 

of which should be printed on acid-free paper. Each report should contain site plans, and project maps. Submittal of the final report 

must be made within six (6) months of receipt of comments on the draft report from SED and DOT, or by the end of the contract term, 

which ever comes first. One unbound copy of the report with original photographs and all site plans and project maps shall be 

maintained either by the investigator or the SED for future copy use. Additional reports may be requested for distribution to local and 

regional repositories.

III.B. BUILDINGS AND ENGINEERING PROPERTIES

PURPOSE: To record and document standing buildings/structures as part of the Section 106/14.09 mitigation process.

METHOD: Follow the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Architectural and Engineering Documentation

(Federal Register, Vol. 48, No. 190, Thursday, September 29, 1983, pp. 44730-34) and/or the New York State Office of Parks, 

Recreation, and Historic preservation guidelines for the appropriate level of documentation. Procedures for appropriate levels of 

documentation and instructions for completion of documentation are provided in the following documents, copies of which are 

available from the CRSP director or his designate.

• OPRHP October 24, 1995 Memorandum on Mitigation Documentation

• National Park Service August 1989 Guidance for the Preparation of Written and Descriptive Data in Accordance with 

the Standards of the Historic American Engineering Record.

• OPRHP 1987 Specifications on Photographic Documentation (Association for Preservation Technology Bulletin 14(4):6-

7, 54)

• National Park Service, March 1991 Guide for the Preparation of Photographic Documentation in Accordance with the 

Standards of the Historic American building Survey/Historic American Engineering Record.

• National Park Service, October 1990 Guide to Written reports for the Historic American Building Survey.

PRODUCT: Submit two draft copies of the HABS or HAER documentation with appropriate drawings and figures to the CRSP 

director or his designate according to project schedule. The draft documentation will be reviewed by the CRSP director or his 

designate and DOT/EAB. Make necessary revisions based on CRSP and DOT/EAB comments and submit three copies to the CRSP 

director or his designate for distribution to DOT who will forward copies to SHPO/OPRHP for comment. After approval by 

SHPO/OPRHP, make required number of final copies and submit to the CRSP director or his designate according to project schedule. 

Additional copies may be requested by SHPO/OPRHP for distribution to local repositories. 

Attachment E to the Draft Programmatic Agreement for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program
1SED-CRSP Work Scope 2004

APPENDIX A

REVISED SECTION 106 IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES 

The following procedures outline New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) 

responsibilities for implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as delegated by 

the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The New York State Museum participates in this process 

through its role in the identification of historic properties (800.4) on behalf of NYSDOT. As outlined in 

Step 2, cultural resource survey reports prepared by SED and its subconsultants provide eligibility 

recommendations for review and concurrance by the SHPO and FHWA. 

Attachment E to the Draft Programmatic Agreement for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program
SED-CRSP Work Scope 2004

 

REVISED SECTION 106 PROCEDURES FOR NYSDOT

STEP 1 – INITIATE THE SECTION 106 PROCESS (800.3)

The NYSDOT, early in the NEPA process, shall consult with SHPO/THPO, to identify consulting parties and invite them to 

participate in the Section 106 process (i.e. local officials, other federal/state agencies, public organizations/groups) (800.8(a)(2)).

Region establishes if project has potential to cause effect on historic properties (800.3(a))

I. Determines project has no potential to cause effect on historic properties

A. Document in Design Report

B. Section 106 complete

II. Determines project may cause effect on historic properties

A. Go to STEP 2

STEP-2 IDENTIFY HISTORIC PROPERTIES (800.4)

The NYSDOT, in consultation with SHPO/THPO and identified consulting parties, shall take steps necessary to identify historic 

properties within the Area of Potential Effects (800.4. (b)).

Region applies screening/survey criteria

I. Determines screening needed – screening conducted

A. No potential historic properties identified

1. Document in Design Report

2. Section 106 complete

B. Potential historic properties identified (12 or less) in consultation with EAB (above ground concerns only)

a. Proceed to STEP 2.III.B for Assessing Affects

C. Determines survey needed (12 or more potential historic properties identified or archaeologically sensitive and no prior 

 ground disturbance demonstrated)

a. Proceed to STEP 2.II 

D. Entirely w/in S/NRHP listed or eligible historic district prepares inventory forms for potential historic properties

a. Proceed to STEP 2.II

II. Determines survey needed

A. Determine survey type

 1. Survey needed for buildings/structure (12 or more) & archaeology

2. Survey needed for building/structures only (12 or more)

2. Survey needed for archaeology only

B. Initiate survey – prepares and submits Form A & maps to SED and EA B

1. SHPO copied – early project notification 

III. Survey report results

A. No historic properties identified – SED sends all reports to EAB

 1. EAB agrees with SED’s eligibility recommendations

a. EAB requests FHWA’s concurrence that no historic properties affected

b. EAB notifies SHPO of finding concurrently with FHWA and distributes survey report to SHWA, 

SHPO & regions

(1) No response form SHPO within 30 days

(a) assume agreement

(b) FHWA provides notification to NYSDOT & SHPO that Section 106 is complete

(2) SHPO objects within 30 days – copies FHWA &NYSDOT

(a) SHPO identifies potential historic properties

i) NYSDOT does not agree with SHPO’s eligibility recommendations

a) FHWA requests Department of Interior (DOI) opinion on 

eligibility 

1.1 DOI determines property eligible

1.2 Proceed to STEP 3.I to assess project effect

Attachment E to the Draft Programmatic Agreement for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program
SED-CRSP Work Scope 2004

 

ii) NYSDOT agrees with SHPO’s eligibility recommendations

a) Proceeds to STEP 3.I to assess project affects 

2. EAB/Region disagree with SED’s eligibility recommendations

b. EAB distributes reports to SHPO, FHWA and Region with potential historic property 

recommendations

c. Proceed to STEP 2.III.B.1a.

B. Historic Properties Identified

1. SED survey report/regional inventory forms sent to SHPO – NYSDOT & FHWA copied

a. No response from SHPO within 45 days regarding historic property recommendations

(1) Assume agreement w/SED eligibility recommendations 

(2) Region proceeds to STEP 3.I to assess project affects

b. SHPO responds with disagreement on all or several eligibility determinations within 45 days –

copies NYSDOT and FHWA on all or part of SED’s recommendations

(1) If SHPO finds historic properties eligible

(a) EAB/Region disagree with SHPO’s eligibility determinations

i) Go to STEP 2.III.A.1.b.(2)(a)I)a)

(b) EAB/Region agrees with SHPO’s eligibility determinations

i) Go to STEP 3.

(2) If SHPO finds no historic properties eligible 

(a) NYSDOT requests FHWA’s concurrence that no historic properties affected

i) FHWA concurs – copies SHPO & NYSDOT

 iii) 36 CFR, Part 800 is complete

c. SHPO requests more information

(1) SED or Region provides information to SHPO – FHWA and EAB copied

(2) Proceed to STEP 2.III.B.1

STEP 3 – ASSESS EFFECTS TO HISTORIC PROPERTIES (800.5) 

The NYSDOT, in consultation with SHPO/THPO and identified consulting parties, shall consult regarding the undertaking’s effect on 

historic properties during the NEPA scoping and the preparation of the NEPA Documents (i.e. EA or DEIS/EIS), and hold public 

hearings, publish notice of EA/EIS availability in local papers, publish notice of opportunity for a design or combined corridor design 

for public hearings (800.5(c)(2)). Also through this consultation, alternatives & proposed measures that might avoid, minimize or 

mitigate any adverse effects on historic properties will be described in the EA or DEIS/EIS.

I. Region Evaluates Affect to Historic Properties

A. Avoids affecting historic properties – prepares finding documentation & requests FHWA’s concurrence that no historic 

 properties affected 0 SHPO notified (no effect)

1. No response from SHPO within 30 days

a. Assume agreement with finding

b. FHWA provides concurrence letter to region – copies SHPO & EAB 

c. Section 106 complete

2. SHPO objects within 30 days

a. FHWA &NYSDOT notified of objection

b. Additional consultation needed

c. Proceed to STWP 4 if issues not resolved

B. Region finds, in consultation with EAB & SHPO, that historic properties affected – Proceed with STEP 4

STEP 4 – APPLY CRITERIA OF ADVERSE EFFECT 9800.5(a))

I. Region applies criteria of adverse effect (800.5(a))

A. Determines project will have an adverse effect on historic properties – proceed to STEP 5 for assessment of adverse 

effects

II. Region proposes finding of no adverse effect (800.5(b))

A. Prepares finding documentation & sends to SHPO, EAB & FHWA

Attachment E to the Draft Programmatic Agreement for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program
SED-CRSP Work Scope 2004

 

1. No response from SHPO within 45 days

a. Assume agreement

b. FHWA gives concurrence – copies SHPO & EAB

2. SHPO responds to finding to NYSDOT within 45 days – copies to FHWA

a. Additional information requested

b. Conditions modified/added

c. Return to STEP 4.I.

3. SHPO disagrees to finding to NYSDOT within 45 days – copies FHWA 

a. Proceed to STEP5 if no adverse effect is not resolved

STEP 5 – RESOLUTION OF ADVERSE EFFECT (800.6)

I. NYSDOT explore avoidance/modifications alternatives

A. Successful – avoids adverse effect

1. Return to STEP3, if recommended no historic properties affected

2. Return to STEP 4, if recommend no adverse effect

B. Region concludes adverse effect

1. Provides finding documentation to SHPO (800.11(e)) – copies other consulting parties, FHWA & EAB

2. SHPO concurs within 45 days

a. Issues adverse effect letter and draft MOA to region – copies other consulting parties, FHWA & 

EAB

b. FHWA concurs – notifies Council (Council has 15 days to respond)

(1) Requests Council’s involvement

(2) Determines Council will not be involved

c. FHWA forwards Council response to region – copies other consulting parties, EAB & SHPO

3. SHPO does not concur – proceed to STEP 5.I.

II. Region progresses draft MOA 

A. Agrees with MOA/Stipulations & signs agreement – circulates to SHPO & FHWA for signatures

B. Disagrees with MOA/Stipulations

1. Consults with SHPO &FHWA on stipulations & modifies MOA with agreed upon stipulations

2. Signs MOA & circulates to SHPO & FHWA for signatures

III. Council participation

A. If Council not consulting party, FHWA provides Council with copy of signed MOA and summary documentation (if 

not previously submitted) – copies to SHPO, NYSDOT, & other consulting parties

1. Date of FHWA notification letter to Council – Section 106 process complete

B. If Council participates

1. FHWA provides Council with original MOA and draft design approval document

2. FHWA requests Council concurrence & signature

a. Council agrees & signs MOA – returns to FHWA

 (1) FHWA distributes copies to NYSDOT, SHPO & consulting parties – Section 106 process 

complete

b. Council disagrees

 (1) Consults with FHWA & SHPO

Attachment E to the Draft Programmatic Agreement for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program
SED-CRSP Work Scope 2004

 

APPENDIX B

CRSP RECONNAISSANCE (PHASE I) SURVEY 

REPORT OUTLINE FOR DOT PROJECTS

Attachment E to the Draft Programmatic Agreement for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program
SED-CRSP Work Scope 2004

 

CRSP RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY (PHASE I SURVEY)

REPORT OUTLINE FOR DOT PROJECTS

I. TITLE PAGE

A. Cultural Resource Survey Type

B. Program Year

C. PIN, BIN, and PR# (if available)

D. Project Name – Location

E. Author/Institution

F. Prepared For NYS Museum

G. Date

H. Sponsor – NYSDOT and FHWA (federal projects)

II. MANAGEMENT SUMMARY (OUTLINE FORMAT)

A. DOT PIN and BIN and PR# (if available): _________ _________ __________

B. DOT project type (from Form A) and funding (state or federal): ___________________________ 

____________________________

C. Cultural resource survey type: ________________________________

D. LOCATION INFORMATION

Route (from – to): __________________________________________

Minor Civil Division (give MCD number): ______________________

County: __________________________________________________

E. SURVEY AREA

Length: __________________________________________________

Width: ___________________________________________________

Acres: ____________________________________________________

F. U.S.G.S. 7.5 Minute Quadrangle Map: __________________________

G. SENSITIVITY ASSESSMENT

Prehistoric (high, medium, low): _______________________________

Historic (high, medium, low): __________________________________

H. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY METHODOLOGY

Number of shovel test pits: _______

Number of units: _______________

Surface survey (yes/no): _________

I. RESULTS OF ARCHAEOLGICAL SURVEY

Number of p rehistoric sites identified: _______________

Number of historic sites identified: __________________

Number of sites recommended for investigation: _______

Number of listed/eligible or potentially eligible S/NRHP sites identified: ________________________________

J. RESULTS OF ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY

(Reference page number of summary charts)

Number of buildings/structures in project area: _________________

Number of known NR listed/eligible buildings/structures: ________

Number recommended eligible buildings/ structures or districts: ______

Number of S/NRHP listed/eligible or recommended eligible buildings/ structures identified:________

K. AUTHOR/INSTITUTION: ___________________________

L. DATE: ___________________________________________

M. SPONSOR: NYSDOT & FHWA (if appropriate)

IIII. TABLE OF CONTENTS (includes the page number of each historic resource inventory form, archaeological site form, table 

summarizing the location of S/NRHP eligible buildings/structures, and summary of identified S/NRHP eligible 

buildings/structures within the project area). 

List of Photographs and Figures.

IV. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY

A. DOT project description (reference source of information)

1. Details on project work scope and location (If area to be surveyed does not include the entire area give 

reason provided by DOT on Form A.)

Attachment E to the Draft Programmatic Agreement for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program
SED-CRSP Work Scope 2004

 

2. Survey Width – specify from centerline

3. Survey Length – total length of surveyed area

B. General Project Area

1. Maps of project location (i.e. state, county, town)

2. Photographs of current land use (commercial, rural, suburban etc.)

C. Background Research

1. Site file search (table format preferred). Include the site name/number, site type, location, whether it is 

listed (L), eligible (E), or inventoried (I) and source information:

New York State Museum (NYSM)

State Historic Preservation Office/Office of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation (SHPO/OPRHP)

Universities

County/town

Interviews

2. Environmental Setting (Brief and Relevant)

a. Topography

b. Soils (summary of dominant series)

c. Drainage and distance to nearest water source

d. Type and extent of disturbance with documentation if available

3. Prehistoric Context

a. Brief overview of settlement pattern focusing on site types expect to find in project area (The 

scope of this overview should be specific to project area based on existing knowledge.)

b. Prehistoric site sensitivity (Based on integration of environmental information, site file data, 

overview, and current land use/disturbances)

4. Historic Context (For archaeological sites, buildings, districts, structures and objects)

a. Major historic trends or themes for project area.

b. Historic maps – map documented structure (MDS) and structures summary table

c. Historic site sensitivity (Based on historic map results, information about settlement prior to 

historic maps, and current land use/disturbance)

D. Archaeological Survey Methodology

1. Project walkover

a. Areas eliminated from testing (steep slope, standing water, disturbance, access denied)

2. Testing procedures

a. Surface survey

b. Subsurface testing

i. size/placement and interval/depth

ii. total number of tests

E. Archaeological Survey Results

1. Brief overview of results, including negative results

2. Table summarizing the results of archaeological investigations at MDS and standing buildings/structures 

(Example Table 1, attached)

3. Site descriptions

a. Context statement

b. Site size (horizontal and vertical)

c. Site location

d. Site characteristics (including period of significance)

e. Summary of quantity and kinds of artifacts

f. Artifact distributions – horizontal and vertical

g. Identified features

h. Integrity

i. Research potential

j. Potential impacts (include site exam request information)

4. SHPO/OPRHP site form follows each site description. This form includes the brief summary of the site, a 

summary of S/NRHP eligibility, and under which criteria the site is eligible to S/NRHP.

V. ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY

(If no archaeological survey is required include from above items IV. A, IV.B, IV.C.4)

A. Methodology

(Include review o f SHPO/OPRHP database/discussions with SHPO/OPRHP staff)

Attachment E to the Draft Programmatic Agreement for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program
SED-CRSP Work Scope 2004

 

B. Results – begin with a brief summary of findings under subheadings: Recommended S/NRHP eligible 

buildings/structure, historic districts, non S/NRHP eligible properties, etc.

1. Table of all buildings/structures and objects (include bridges, monuments, and cemeteries)

(Include in table local street name, if known, with street address grouped by MCD then address. Example 

Table 2, attached.)

2. Table of recommended S/NRHP eligible (inventoried) build ings/structures and districts. (Example Table 3, 

attached.)

3. DOT Historic Resource Inventory Form for all eligible buildings/structures (sample attached). For 

proposed historic districts include Historic Setting Analysis, District Form and photos of each 

building/structure. Include a table listing contributing and non-contributing properties. Include DOT 

Bridge Inventory form if the bridge has not been previously evaluated and is recommended S/NRHP 

eligible.

4. Photographs

a. Separate photographs placed after forms for all buildings/structures at least 50 years old showing 

associated landscape features and outbuildings 

b. Streetscapes to show the general setting for recommended S/NRHP eligible districts

5. Organization of Photographs and Inventory Forms

a. Inventory forms with photograph and location map ordered sequentially by address and location

b. Buildings/structures forming recommended S/NRHP eligible districts grouped together as district 

with photographs of streetscapes showing district boundaries. Preliminary district boundaries 

drawn on project map 

c. Photographs of buildings/structures at least 50 years old recommended not S/NRHP eligible 

placed at end of the report, ordered sequentially with and by address or location

d. Associated outbuildings grouped and labeled with the principal building/structure

VI. APPENDICES

A. References and interviews

B. Test pit data/artifact catalog

C. Correspondence (include survey request Form A, SHPO/OPRHP letters, DOT Region letters, S/NRHP and/or 

inventory forms)

D. Project map (Metric/English)

 a. Project area boundary

 b. Shovel test pits (w/ and w/out artifacts)

 c. Buildings and structures (NRE/ not NRE)

 d. MDS locations

 e. Photo angles

 f. Site names, numbers, and boundaries

 g. Areas not tested (standing water, steep slope, disturbance, access denied)

 h. Boundaries of recommended S/NRHP eligible and S/NRHP listed historic districts

E. Nomination forms for S/NRHP listed properties

 

Attachment E to the Draft Programmatic Agreement for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program
9SED-CRSP Work Scope 2004

EXAMPLE TABLE 1. Summary of the Results of Archaeological Investigations at MDS/Standing Structures.

Structure/MDS Map 

#

First Known 

Identification

Inside 

Project 

Area? 

Field Conditions Testing 

Interval

STPs Artifacts Comments/Impacts

Cincinnatus 

Ambulance (MDS1)

8 L.N. Hopkins

barn

no Post-1950 structure with 

partially paved front

15 m 1 0 No cultural remains recovered. No 

further work recommended. 

2761 Taylor Ave. 

(MDS 2)

8 H.B. Boyd

barn

yes modern gas station with 

paving 

no testing - - Area extensively disturbed by modern 

building construction. No further work 

recommended.

MDS 3 4, 8 barn yes lawn and brush next to 

creek, area graded

7.5 m 3-7 40 Barn associated with dwelling to the 

north. Artifacts recovered include 

mostly coal, ash, and cinders/slag along 

with nails and other architectural 

debris. Only a few fragments of 

domestic refuse were recovered such as 

ceramic and bottle glass likely 

associated with the dwelling. No 

structural features were found and the 

area appeared to be extensively 

disturbed. No further work is 

recommended. 

2769 Telephone Rd. 4,5,6,8,

10

L. White yes lawn, sidewalk, 

driveway

15 m 8-10 19 Artifacts consist of low density sheet 

scatter from late 19th and early 20th

century found in unstratified A horizon. 

No features found. Little research 

potential. No further work 

recommended. 

2781 Taylor Ave. 

(NY 26)

4,5,6,7, 

10

Pres. Church no lawn, sidewalk 15m 11, 12 3 Two whiteware fragments and one 

bottle glass fragment recovered in the A 

horizon. Little research potential. No 

further work recommended.

5681Main St. (MDS 

4)

4,5,6,7,

8 

O. Kingman, Res. 

& Store

yes lawn, sidewalk in front 

of 1930s public library

7.5 m 21-25 109 O. Kingman House and Store Site 

(NYSM #10919). See Site Description 

Section.

 

 

Attachment E to the Draft Programmatic Agreement for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program
10SED-CRSP Work Scope 2004

EXAMPLE TABLE 2

Table 2. List of Architectural Properties in Project Area

Address/Location NR-Eligible Not NR-Eligible < 50 years old Existing NR Status / 

Comments

Town of Hoosick, Rensselaer County - MCD 08305

(Hamlet of North Hoosick)

NY 22

North Hoosick Fire Dept

22106 NY 22

x

Jacob Chace House

22109 NY 22

x

22112 NY 22 x

22114 NY 22 x

22126 NY 22 x

North Hoosick Post Office

22157 NY 22

x

22159 NY 22 x

22169 NY 22 x

22179 NY 22 x

22182 NY 22 x

22184 NY 22 x

22186 NY 22 x

Delaney Hotel

22198 NY 22

NR-Listed

95NR0892

BIN 1-01700-0

NY 22 / Walloomsac River

Excluded from 2000 

Historic Bridge 

Inventory (on 5-year 

Capital Program)

NY 67

Stewart's

4702 NY 67

x

Baby Lane

7 Baby Lane x

Foxy's Antiques

8 Baby Lane

x

Factory Hill Road

1 Factory Hill Road x

3 Factory Hill Road x

5 Factory Hill Road x

7 Factory Hill Road x

11 Factory Hill Road x

15 Factory Hill Road x

21 Factory Hill Road x

North Hoosick United 

Methodist Church

8 Factory Hill Road

x

12 Factory Hill Road x

32 Factory Hill Road x

50 Factory Hill Road x

BIN 2-20166-0

Factory Hill Road over 

Walloomsac River

2000 DOT Historic 

Bridge Inventory 

determined bridge NRE

Mahar Road

19 Mahar Road x

20 Mahar Road x

Attachment E to the Draft Programmatic Agreement for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program
SED-CRSP Work Scope 2004

 

EXAMPLE TABLE 3

Table 3. Contributing Landscaping of NR-Listed and NR-Eligible Properties

Name/Address SHPO Unique Site 

Number

Other Inventory Contributing Landscaping

Within /Adjacent to Project Area

Town of Hoosick, Rensselaer County - MCD 08305

(Hamlet of North Hoosick)

Delaney Hotel 08305.000003 Property has a dirt parking lot and 

narrow lawn strip along Route 67

Jacob Chace House

22109 NY 22

mature trees, lawn

22114 NY 22 mature trees, lawn, concrete path

5 Factory Hill Rd mature tree, lawn

North Hoosick United 

Methodist Church

8 Factory Hill Rd

08305.000104 trees, lawn along back edge of lot

50 Factory Hill Rd trees, lawn

19 Mahar Road mature tree, lawn

BIN 2-20166-0 08305.000020 

Attachment E to the Draft Programmatic Agreement for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program
SED-CRSP Work Scope 2004

 

APPENDIX C

CRSP ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE EXAMINATION (PHASE II)

REPORT OUTLINE FOR DOT PROJECTS

Attachment E to the Draft Programmatic Agreement for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program
SED-CRSP Work Scope 2004

 

CRSP ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE EXAMINATION (PHASE II) 

REPORT OUTLINE FOR DOT PROJECTS

I. Title page (as described in Phase I report outline)

II. Management Summary

1. Project Goal

2. Site Identification (include Unique Site No.)

3. Location (following SPHINX guidelines)

4. DOT PIN

5. DOT BIN

6. Project Limits

7. U.S.G.S. Quadrangle

8. Area Tested (square meters, square feet)

9. Description of Site and Testing Results

1. Setting (brief)

2. Type

3. Age

4. Function

10. Significance Statement

1. Integrity

2. Significance of Site/Research Topics

11. Potential Impacts

12. Recommendations (eligibility, additional work). Reference page of site inventory form or include brief summary of the 

site, a summary of S/NRHP eligibility, and under which criteria the site is S/NRHP eligible.

13. Author/Institution

14. Date of Report

15. Sponsor

III. Table of Contents

IV. Introduction

1. Site Identification

2. Site Location

3. Summary of information on site based on previous investigations

1. Time Period

2. Function (general)

3. Size

4. Justification for Site Examination investigation

V. Background Research

1. Environmental Context

1. Regional 

2. Site-specific

2. Historic Context Development (prehistoric and/or historic as appropriate) sufficient to aid in determination of S/NRHP 

Eligibility

VI. Methodology

1. Field

1. Test unit size(s)

2. Placement

3. Depth

4. Rationale

5. Screening

6. Other methods as appropriate

7. Mapping

2. Laboratory

1. Processing

2. Analytical procedures for specific artifact classes (e.g., chipped stone, pottery, historic ceramics, glass, nails)

3. Repository of artifacts, field notes, and other records

VII. Results

1. Site boundaries within project area

Attachment E to the Draft Programmatic Agreement for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program
SED-CRSP Work Scope 2004

 

1. Horizontal

2. Vertical

2. Site stratigraphy and chronology (with appropriate illustrations)

1. Soils (should include representative test unit profiles)

2. Diagnostic artifacts (should include photographs and/or drawings)

3. Radiocarbon dates (when appropriate) 

Features 

5. Artifact analysis

 1. technology

 2. style

 3 function

6. Specialty analysis (where appropriate)

7. Site structure

 1. Artifact distributions

 2. Feature distributions

8. Physical integrity

VIII. Interpretation

(Specifically referencing results of all sources of information including artifact analysis, stratigraphy, features, site structure, 

etc.)

1. Site age

2. Site function

3. Relationship to local and regional context

IX. Significance Assessment

1. Integrity

2. Adequacy of horizontal and vertical boundary definition

3. Significant research topics that can be addressed by site

 1. Reference contextual development

 2. Reference results

3. Statement of ability of site to yield important information to address research topics (positive or negative)

4. Methodology needed to achieve research goals (if appropriate)

X. Assessment of proposed work on site integrity

1. Identification of specific impacts

2. Maps

XI. Recommendations 

1. Data Recovery

2. No further work

3. Avoidance

XII. Appendices (double sided)

1. Reference and interviews

2. Test pit data/artifact catalog

3. Correspondence (include survey request Form A., SHPO/OPRHP letters, DOT Region letters)

4. Project map (Metric/English)

Attachment E to the Draft Programmatic Agreement for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program
SED-CRSP Work Scope 2004

 

APPENDIX D

STANDARDS FOR CULTURAL RESOURCE INVESTIGATIONS

AND THE CURATION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL COLLECTIONS 

IN NEW YORK STATE

by 

THE NEW YORK ARCHAEOLOGICAL COUNCIL

Attachment E to the Draft Programmatic Agreement for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program
SED-CRSP Work Scope 2004

 

Standards for Cultural Resource Investigations

and the Curation of Archaeological Collections

in New York State

by

The New York Archaeological Council

Adopted by the New York State

Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation

© 1994 The New York Archaeological Council

All rights reserved.

Attachment E to the Draft Programmatic Agreement for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program
17SED-CRSP Work Scope 2004

Table of Contents

 Page

1.0 Introduction ..........................................................................1

2.0 Phase I Cultural Resource Investigation:

Preliminary Reconnaissance.............................................1

2.1 Goals of Phase I Investigation...................................................1

2.2 Phase IA Literature Search and 

 Sensitivity Assessment ........................................................1

2.2.1 Environment/Physical Setting .............................................1

2.2.2 Backg round Research............................................................1

2.2.3 Sensitivity Assessment..........................................................2

2.3 Phase IB: Filed Investigation Guidelines...........................2

2.3.1 Systematic Surface Survey...................................................3

2.3.2 Subsurface Shovel Testing...................................................3

2.4 Phase IB Report......................................................................3

2.5 Disposition of Collections....................................................3

3.0 Phase II Cultural Resource Investigations:

Site Evaluation......................................................................4

3.1 Goals of Phase II Investigations..........................................4

3.1.1 Site Boundaries/Site Size .....................................................4

3.1.2 Temporal and/or Cultural Affiliation .................................4

3.1.3 Intra-Site Artifact/Feature Patterning.................................4

3.1.4 Site Function and Context ....................................................4

3.1.5 Data Potential and Site Integrity .........................................4

3.2 Phase II Documentary Research..........................................4

3.3 Phase II Field Work/Excavation Guidelines.....................5

3.3.1 Surface Investigations Guidelines.......................................5

3.3.2 Subsurface Testing/Excavation Guidelines.......................5

3.4 Phase II Analyses and Report ..............................................6

3.5 Urban Contexts.......................................................................7

3.6 Underwater Sites....................................................................7

3.7 Supplemental Phase II Investigations.................................7

3.8 Disposition of Collections....................................................7

4.0 Phase III Cultural Resource Investigations:

Data Recovery.......................................................................7

4.1 Goals of Phase III Data Recovery/

Impact Mitigation ..................................................................7

4.2 Phase III Research Design/Data Recovery Plan...............7

4.3 Phase III Field Work/Excavation Guidelines....................7

4.4 Phase III Analyses and Report.............................................8

4.5 Supplemental Phase III Investigations...............................8

4.6 Disposition of Collections....................................................8

 

 Page

5.0 Discovery of Human Remains............................................ 9

6.0 Standards for the Production of CRM Reports............ 9

6.1 Title Page .................................................................................. 9

6.2 Table of Contents.................................................................... 9

6.3 Management Summary ........................................................... 9

6.4 Introduction.............................................................................. 9

6.5 Environmental /Physical Setting......................................... 10

6.6 Background Research and Sensitivity Assessment ......... 10

6.6.1 Background Research........................................................... 10

6.6.2 Sensitivity Assessment......................................................... 10

6.7 Research Design .................................................................... 10

6.8 Field Methods and Procedures............................................ 10

6.9 Results..................................................................................... 11

6.9.1 Components of a Phase I Report......................................... 11

6.9.2 Components of a Phase II Report ....................................... 11

6.9.3 Components of a Phase III Report ...................................... 11

6.9.4 Project Map Specifications.................................................. 11

6.10 Summary, Conclusion and Recommendations................. 12

6.10.1 Components of a Phase I Report......................................... 12

6.10.2 Components of a Phase II Report ....................................... 12

6.10.3 Components of a Phase III Report ...................................... 12

6.11 References Cited.................................................................... 12

7.0 Standards for the Curation of 

 Archaeological Collections................................................ 12

7.1 Definitions.............................................................................. 12

7.1.1 Collections.............................................................................. 12

7.1.2 Material Remains................................................................... 12

7.1.3 Associated Records............................................................... 12

7.1.4 Curatorial Services................................................................ 13

7.1.5 Qualified Museum Professional ......................................... 13

7.2 Responsibilities of the Archaeologist................................. 14

7.3 Guidelines for Selecting a Repository ............................... 14

7.4 Criteria for Institutions Serving as a 

Repositories for Archaeological Collections.................... 14

Appendix A Laws, Regulations and 

 Guidance Documents ........................................... 16

Appendix B NYAC Burial Resolution (1972)....................... 17

Appendix C NYAC Code of Ethics and Practice ................ 17

Appendix D Glossary.................................................................. 18

INDEX ................................................................................................ 20

Attachment E to the Draft Programmatic Agreement for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program
1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Standards for Phase IA, IB II and III Cultural Resource

Investigations; the Production of Cultural Resource Management 

Reports; and the Curation of Archaeological Collections, have

been developed in order to ensure a degree of uniformity in the 

approach taken by archaeologists in New York State. It is hoped 

that all archaeologists, private developers, local, state and federal 

agencies will make use of these standards toward the fulfillment of 

their preservation obligations under a variety of federal, state and 

local laws and preservation ordinances. 

The purpose of these guidelines is to ensure that archaeological 

work of the highest caliber is carried out in New York. These 

guidelines will help to clarify expectations for the often diverse 

approaches to cultural resource investigations utilized by the

increasing number of individuals and corporate groups that are 

becoming involved in cultural resource compliance reviews. All 

professional/Supervisory level personnel must meet the

qualifications set forth in 36 CFR 61. Their aim is to promote 

consistent, high quality performance, and documentation. 

Although detailed in some cases, these guidelines are not intended 

to be all-encompassing nor to address all possible situations.

It is likewise expected that published guidelines will result in more 

acceptable, efficient, and cost-effective research on New York 

archaeological sites. Innovation beyond the scope of these

recommended procedures is expected and encouraged.

Good judgement and common sense must prevail. These

guidelines will be subject to periodic revision and refinement.

2.0 PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCE

INVESTIGATIONS: RECONNAISSANCE

2.1 Goals of Phase I Investigations

The primary goal: of Phase I Cultural Resource Investigations are 

to identify archaeologically sensitive areas, cultural/sacred areas 

and standing structures that are at least 50 years old, that may be 

affected by a proposed project and to locate all prehistoric and 

historic cultural/archaeological resources that may exist within the 

proposed project area. The goals of Phase I work need to be

flexible to reflect the size of the project and stage of project 

planning and can be undertaken in subphases (Phase IA and IB) if 

appropriate.

When a review process determines that a project will not affect any 

known or recorded sites(s) but is located in an area where

insufficient previous survey has been conducted, and where there 

is a moderate or high probability that previously unrecorded sites 

may occur, Phase I culture resource investigations should be

conducted. The purpose of these investigations is to locate all 

surface and/or subsurface sites that occur within the project area. 

Site locations are frequently discovered as a result of documentary 

search, informant interviews, land surface inspection and

subsurface testing.

Due to the complexities often characterizing projects and sites 

located in urban settings, these guidelines apply primarily to 

projects situated in non-urban environments. At some point in the 

near future, guidelines will be established for Phase I work in 

urban environments (cf. Pennsylvania guidelines) as well as

underwater contexts.

2.2 Phase IA Literature Search and Sensitivity Assessment

Phase IA investigations are intended to gather information

concerning the environmental/physical setting of a specific project 

area as well as its cultural setting. It is the interrelationship of the 

physical environment and the cultural, historical setting that

provide the basis for the sensitivity assessment. This research 

should include a consideration of relevant geomorphology and 

soils information, culture history, and previous archaeological 

research to provide for the development of exp licit expectations or 

predictions regarding the nature and locations of sites. Regardless 

of the project size, archaeologists should consider all relevant data 

in developing these expectations. The specific source from which 

background information should be drawn will vary according to 

project size and the availability of comparative data. The

information presented and analyses performed should assist

reviewe rs in understanding and evaluating the importance of

environmental and cultural /historical resources within and

surrounding the project area. Finally, it should also provide the 

rationale for developing the research design, the sensitivity 

assessment, and for selecting appropriate Phase IB field

methodology as well as for evaluating project impacts.

2.2.1 Environmental/Physical Setting

A summary of relevant information, with accompanying maps

(where appropriate), concerning the environmental/physical setting

should address the following: geology, soils, hydrology, 

physiography/geomorphology, climate, flora, fauna, and recent 

human/natural -disturbances.

2.2.2 Background Research

Background research should include a preliminary review of

manuscripts, maps, atlases, and historical documents, unpublished 

notes, previous surveys, State and local site inventories, and 

published material relevant to the project area to locate possible 

sites and provide the basis for documenting the cultural setting for 

the project area. The specific sources from which background 

information should be drawn will vary according to project size

and the availability of comparative data. Where information 

pertaining to the specific project area or environs is not available, 

expectations should be developed from regional or state plans for 

the conservation of archaeological resources, investigations of

similar environments outside the local area, or other environmental 

data. The results of this background research should be included 

in the report as documentation and justification for the sensitivity 

assessment and site location predictions.

The following list of topics may be useful in considerations of 

cultural setting. A comprehensive treatment of the cultural setting 

of a project area will most likely only involve some subset of this 

list. These have been adapted from a list of historic contexts 

Attachment E to the Draft Programmatic Agreement for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program
2

developed by the New York State Historic Preservation Office

(NYS SHPO).

• Transportation

• Economy

Industry

Agriculture

• Social Organization

Government

Education

• Social Change

Contact and Settlement Post-Revolutionary

 War Expansion

Social and Political Movements

• Religion

• Communication

• Recreation

Entertainment

Tourism

• Demography

Immigration

Emigration

• Community Planning and Development

• Engineering

• Architecture

• Science

• Art and Literature

• Ethnicity

It is recognized that a variety of individuals, especially those

interested in or living near a specific project area, may have

information not available from any other source. Such information 

can enhance the data gathered from the written record alone. 

Informant interviews with persons (e.g. avocational archaeologists, 

landowners, state or local government agency staff) who may be 

familiar with the project area and possible archaeological sites can 

make a valuable contribution to these investigations.

A field visit to the project area should be undertaken to determine 

the possibility of prior disturbance/destruction and the

physiographic evidence for potential sites. Where conditions at the 

time of the field visit differ from those portrayed on map

resources, the current conditions should be described and the map 

resources amended accordingly. If the initial field check shows 

that any sites have been previously destroyed, or that for other 

obvious reasons no sites exist there, the appropriate review agency

should be consulted. It maybe determined that no further Phase I 

survey is required. The basis for such conclusions must be

submitted in writing with supporting documentation (e.g.

building/grading plans, photographs).

2.2.3 Sensitivity Assessment

An estimate of the archaeological sensitivity of a given area

provides the archaeologist with a tool with which to design 

appropriate field procedures for the investigation of that area. 

These sensitivity projections are generally band upon the following 

factors: statements of locational preferences or tendencies for

particular settlement systems, characteristics of the local

environment which provide essential or desirable resources (e.g. 

proximity to perennial water sources, well-drained soils, floral and 

faunal resources, raw materials, and/or trade and transportation 

routes), the density of known archaeological and historical

resources within the general area, and the extent of known

disturbances which can potentially affect the integrity of sites and 

the recovery of material from them.

The analysis of data gathered for the environmental/physical 

setting and the cultural setting must address the following

questions: Given the data gathered for the environmental/physical 

setting and the cultural setting of the project area what is the

likelihood of finding prehistoric or historic cultural/ archaeological 

resources? What types of sites are likely to be found? What is the 

likely condition of sites that might be found?

2.3 Phase IB Field Investigation Guidelines

Appropriate field investigations comprise a systematic, on-site 

field inspection designed to assess archaeologically sensitive areas 

and environmental characteristics relevant to site locations and 

formation processes. Such investigations include, but are not 

limited to systematic surface survey, subsurface shovel testing, and 

remote sensing studies.

Subsurface testing is often the major component of this level of 

investigation and is required except in those cases in which the 

presence or absence of resources can be determined by direct 

observation (e.g. surface survey), by the examination of specific 

documented references, or by the detailed documentation of prior 

disturbance of such a degree that all traces of intact cultural

resources have been erased.

Field-testing procedures for Phase IB Field Investigations should 

verify site locations provided by informants, confirm site locations 

suggested by the literature search, and discover previously

unknown sites. The areas to be subjected to a field survey are 

selected on the basis of the data gathered during the Phase IA 

evaluation and all probable locations of project construction,

staging areas, or any other areas of potential impact. Detailed 

evaluation of specific resources is not carried out at this level; 

however, it is necessary to record and describe sites as fully as 

possible to aid in the formulation of recommendations for

avoidance if site boundaries are adequately defined or further 

evaluation. The precise locations of identified resources with 

respect to areas of impact of the proposed project must be clearly 

established.

Because portions of project areas often differ in the likelihood of 

containing sites, contracted archaeologists encountering or

anticipating considerable diversity in site densities within the

project area should devise survey strategies in consultation with 

the appropriate review agency. In cases where sampling specific 

portions (or strata) of a project area is planned, sampling designs 

that ensure equal probability of identifying sites in all surveyed 

locales must be devised. Some areas may, however, be eliminated 

from survey due to the lesser probability that sites would occur. 

Areas characterized by more than 12-15 per cent slope may fall 

into this category; obvious exceptions to elimination of such areas 

Attachment E to the Draft Programmatic Agreement for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program
3

of slope would include terraces and possible rockshelter sites. 

Where the field testing or literature search reveals areas of

disturbance in which no sites could remain intact, documentation 

of this disturbance via photographs, construction plans,

stratigraphic profiles, soil borings, etc. must be included in the 

report. Areas of standing water may also he excluded from 

testing, if appropriate and if reasonable explanations for avoiding 

such areas are presented. Areas not subjected to intensive

archaeological investigations should be documented

photographically in the archaeological report and on project area 

maps.

2.3.1 Systematic Surface Survey 

Areas that have not been plowed and disked in the past should not 

be plowed or disked to facilitate a systematic surface survey. If 

previous plowing cannot he documented, a limited shovel testing

program to document the presence of a plowzone should be

undertaken. Each systematic surface survey should he performed 

according to the following standards, unless alternative methods

have been developed in consultation with the appropriate review 

agency. A limited -subsurface shovel-testing program should also 

be conducted in conjunction with (and prior to) all surface surveys

in order to assess plowzone depths and characteristics of

underlying soils.

If all non-wooded, previously cultivated portions of the project 

area can be plowed and disked, a systematic surface investigation

can he undertaken once the area has been prepared and subjected 

to a steady rainfall. Systematic controlled surface survey may 

only be performed if adequate side visibility (i.e. 70% or better) 

exists. Plowing and disking in strips with intervening areas of 

unplowed ground no wider than 15 meters may be an acceptable

means of field preparation if and only if shovel tests are excavated 

at 15-meter intervals throughout the unplowed areas.

Archaeological field crews should align themselves at 3-meter to 

5-meter intervals in a straight line and pass across the prepared 

areas searching the surface for artifacts. Each artifact find spot or 

artifact concentration should be clearly marked and assigned a

unique field number. After the artifacts have been flagged, a

surface map identifying artifact locations and/or concentrations, 

depending upon the specific situation and number of artifacts, 

should be prepared.

2.3.2 Subsurface Shovel Testing

Subsurface shovel-testing programs should he performed

according to the following standards, unless alternative methods

have been developed in consultation with the appropriate review 

agency. Where surface visibility is impaired (e.g. grass lawns, 

wooded areas), the field survey consists of the excavation of 30 to 

50-centimeter minimum diameter test units to undisturbed or nonartifact bearing subsoil at a maximu m of 15-meter intervals (or 2 

per 460 square meters of surface area = 16 tests per acre = 44 tests 

per hectare). All excavated soils should be screened through 1⁄4-

inch hardware cloth.

Transects should he established with a compass and taped and/or 

paced measurements depending upon local conditions. Transects 

and shovel tests should be numbered in a systematic fashion. 

Soils excavated from shovel tests should he carefully screened as 

noted above in order to recover cultural material. All stratigraphic 

profiles should be described in field notebooks or on appropriate 

field forms. Information recorded in notebooks should include, 

but not he confined to, descriptions of soil type, texture, color, 

condition, and the presence or absence of cultural materials or 

cultural features.

Documentation of field work activities should include the

recording of field observations in notebooks and on appropriate 

forms. Photography should be employed to document field 

conditions, observations, and field techniques.

When cultural materials are discovered in isolated shovel-test 

units, a minimum of four additional units should he dug in the 

vicinity or the initial test units should he expanded to insure

against mistaking evidence of actual sites for "stray finds."

If no cultural resources identified through the Phase IA and/or 

Phase IB surveys will be impacted by the proposed project, then 

the survey process is complete. If cultural resources identified by 

these studies are within the proposed impact area, further

evaluation may be required to determine the potential eligibility of 

the resource(s) for inclusion in the State or National Register of 

Historic Places (NRHP). The extent of additional cultural

resource study may be reduced by project modifications (e.g. 

realignment, relocations) that avoid or minimize potential impacts, 

only if sufficient testing to define valid site boundaries or buffer 

zones has been completed.

2.4 Phase IB Report

The final Phase IB report should present the results of the field 

investigations, including a description of the survey design and 

methodology; complete records of soil stratigraphy and an artifact 

catalog including identification, estimated date range, and quantity 

or weight, as appropriate. The locations of all test units must be 

accurately plotted on a project area map, with locations of

identified resources clearly defined. Photographs that illustrate 

salient points of the survey are an important component of the 

final report. Detailed recommendations and supporting rationale 

for additional investigation must be incorporated into the

conclusions of the Phase IB study. For a detailed summary of the 

requirements for Phase I Reports refer to the NYAC Standards for 

the Production of CRM Reports (Section 6).

2.5 Disposition of Collections

Provisions for the responsible curation of the archaeological

collection (material remains and associated records) generated as a 

result of Phase I investigations, is an integral part of any 

reconnaissance level survey. Collections made during Phase I 

field investigations are often the only collections made from a site, 

especially if mitigation measures include site avoidance. These

collections may represent the remains of resources eligible for 

listing on the State and/or National Register. However, since the 

sites will be avoided, no Phase II investigations are conducted and 

Attachment E to the Draft Programmatic Agreement for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program
4

evaluation of the site cannot be completed based solely upon the 

results of Phase I work. Arrangements must be made in advance 

of any field work for the proper processing, documentation, and 

curation of collections as outlined in Standards for the Curation of 

Archaeological Collections (Section 7).

3.0 PHASE II CULTURAL RESOURCE

INVESTIGATIONS: SITE EVALUTION

3.1 Goals of Phase II Investigations

The primary goals of Phase II Cultural Resource Investigations are 

to obtain detailed information on the integrity, limits, structure, 

function, and cultural/historical context of an archaeological site 

sufficient to evaluate its Potential National Register eligibility. 

These objectives necessitate the recovery and analysis of artifacts, 

their context and distribution, and any other pertinent data

necessary for an adequate evaluation. Based on this information, 

each site can be assessed to determine its eligibility for the State or 

National Registers of Historic Places. A site's significance and 

eligibility are directly related to data collected during a Phase II 

investigation, the site's integrity, research questions that maybe 

answered at the site, and the site's importance in relation to the 

known archaeological database.

A Site is eligible the National Register if it meets one or more of 

the following criteria (as set forth in, NYCRR 427 and 428 or 36 

CFR 800):

A. Associated with events that have made a

Significant contribution to the broad patterns of our

History

B. Associated with the lives of persons significant in

our past;

C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type,

 period or method of construction or represents a 

 significant and distinguishable entity whose 

 components may lack individual distinction; or,

D. Has yielded. or may be likely to yield, information 

 important in prehistory or history.

Specific data are needed to adequately address these criteria and to 

prepare a proper site significance evaluation. These include, but 

may not be limited, site boundaries and an estimate of site size: 

temporal and/or cultural affiliation; intra-site artifact/feature

patterning; site function; and placement within geographic and 

interpretive contexts. Additional important actors include the

potential that the data present on the Site have for yielding 

additional important information and both the physical and

temporal integrity of the site. This multivariate evaluation of site 

significance will also provide the initial framework on which to 

base a subsequent data recovery program if one is required as part 

of the data recovery plan for the site.

3.1.1. Site Boundaries/Site Size

An estimate of the extent of the site is one dimension of variability 

important in interpreting site significance. Establishing site

boundaries is also essential in determining how much of an impact

a proposed project will have on a potentially eligible site. Since 

project limits are arbitrarily defined in geographic space, it maybe 

necessary to estimate the likelihood that the site extends outside 

the project boundaries. National Register Bulletin Number 12 

outlines various ways of estimating site boundaries. Site size is 

also an important factor in placing the occupation within regional 

and cultural settlement systems.

3.1.2 Temporal and/or Cultural Affiliation

Assigning a site to a general time period or specific cultural phase 

or tradition is an integral aspect of significance. This information 

helps place the site within an initial context for interpretation and 

may interface with divisions of interest in the State Plan. 

Temporal/cultural divisions may horizontally across the site or

vertically within the natural stratigraphy of the soils.

3.1.3 Intra-site Artifact/Feature Patterning

Artifacts may be distributed across site area in a uniform, random, 

or clustered fashion. Identifying the characteristics of the

horizontal and vertical distribution pattern provides the initial 

structure for interpreting the site. The presence of features (e.g. 

hearths, pits. cisterns, privy, well, postmolds) adds an additional 

component to the structure of the occupation as well as an

information-rich element for analyzing the site's placement within 

the tempora1/cultural and subsistence/settlement systems. Power 

assisted stripping should not be undertaken as part of site

evaluation unless accompanied by intensive recovery and analysis

of plowzone data. As a rule, power machinery use should be 

restricted to data recovery (Phase III) and the removal of sterile 

overburden.

3.1.4. Site Function and Context 

Using the existing information on intra-site clustering, artifact 

type distributions, and feature presence, a preliminary assessment 

of site function allows the tentative placement of the site within 

known temporal, regional and developmental context of the area. 

This classification and placement may also relate to study units 

defined as important in the State Plan.

3.1.5. Data Potential and Site Integrity 

The criteria for eligibility to the State and National Registers 

specifically requires the archaeologist to assess whether data

present on the site have the potential to yield information

important to understanding the area's history and prehistory. Part 

of this assessment necessitates and evaluation of whether the site 

has suffered physical impacts that have destroyed its research 

potential. Likewise, archaeologists must determine if temporal 

components exist in unmixed contexts, whether they be horizontal 

or vertical, and evaluate to what extent mixing has affected the 

research potential of the site.

Certain methods have a proven record of efficiently obtaining 

information relevant to the State or National Register criteria for 

archaeological sites. These procedures are outlined below. 

3.2 Phase II documentary Research

For both prehistoric and historic sites, Phase II documentary

research provides two types of information: (1) information on the 

types of data expected from the site as derived form previous work 

Attachment E to the Draft Programmatic Agreement for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program
5

on the site and/or on known sites in the locale and region; and (2) 

local, regional and national contexts within which to evaluate the 

importance of the site and to identify research questions that can 

be addressed. Research efforts should include more intensive

interviews with local informants as well as regional and state

experts; specific research of published and unpublished site

reports from the region to determine how the site may fit within 

local and regional chronologies, subsistence/settlement systems, 

and established theoretical contexts; construction of expectations 

concerning the types of data that may be present and the types of 

field strategies appropriate for obtaining these data; and review of 

research issues and theoretical contexts within the disciplines of 

anthropology, archaeology, and history to which the data on the 

site might be relevant. Research questions for historic sites should 

focus on issues that can not be addressed solely through written 

records. The results of this review should form the basis for any 

future data recovery plans.

3.3 Phase II Field Work/Excavation Guidelines

Phase II field work is not limited to the documentation of the

presence/absence of artifacts as in the Phase IB investigations, nor 

to a specific impact zone as in a Phase m data recovery program. 

The Phase II investigation is often the last time a site will be 

examined and the last opportunity for an archaeologist to collect 

information from the entire site area. It is essential that basic or 

"base-line" information be collected at the Phase II level of 

investigation for future reference and research.

3.3.1. Surface Investigation Guidelines

Systematic controlled surface surveys may only be performed if 

adequate surface visibility (70% or better) exists. A systematic 

survey of the project/site area may help to provide a tentative 

estimate of the site's horizontal boundaries s and the

presence/absence of artifact concentrations. With landowner

permission, it may be possible to quickly check outside the project 

limits to determine if the site extends beyond these arbitrary 

boundaries. No area should be plowed that has not been

previously plowed. Depth of plowing should not exceed the depth

of existing plow zone. This depth can be determined from the 

Phase I shovel testing program.

Systematic surface survey will provide information only on those 

items present within the plow zone. If the Phase IB investigations 

showed that sub-plowzone components are present, then

additional subsurface excavations will be necessary to estimate 

site boundaries. In either case subsurface testing is warranted to 

maximize the recovery of information from the plowzone, subplowzone, and to appropriately address the criteria for eligibility. 

Systematic surface survey includes, but is not limited to, walking 

close interval transects (5 meter intervals or less) and marking 

each artifact location for point provenience mapping or collection 

within standard units or cells established at a systematic interval 

across the project/site. All artifact locations identified during a 

systematic surface survey must be documented either through 

piece plotting or by surface collection cell. 

If artifacts are collected by surface cells, both the size and spacing 

of the units should be determined on the basis of the results of the 

Phase IB survey and any other appropriate considerations. If a site 

appears to have low artifact density (e.g. less than 5 artifacts per 

collect cell), then a larger collection cell may be justified. 

Collection cell size should not exceed 5 meter x 5 meter since it is 

unlikely that the plowing process moved artifacts more than this. 

In general, the size and spacing of the cells should be less than that 

used in the Phase IB investigations. If the artifacts appear to be 

evenly distributed across the project area, then an interval as large 

as 10 meters could be justified. If the artifacts appear to be tightly 

clustered, then intervals of 5 meters or less may be warranted.

In the case of historic sites, where evidence of a foundation was 

found during the Phase IB investigation, a more clustered or radial 

pattern of collection could occur using the foundation walls or an 

historic feature as a focal point.

3.3.2 Subsurface Testing/Excavation Guidelines

Subsurface testing is an essential component of a site evaluation. 

Methods included, but are not limited to, a systematic shovel-test 

program, test unit excavations, and remote sensing. In most cases, 

the majority of the information used in evaluating a sites'

significance and eligibility for inclusion on the State or National 

Registers derives from this testing. As with surface inspection, 

subsurface investigation should be designed to gather sufficient 

data to provide an accurate estimate of site boundaries, both for 

plowzone and sub-plowzone components. In addition,

information on the presence and degree of artifact clustering is 

derived form this method. Artifacts analyzed by cluster contribute 

to interpretations of site function as does evidence for features

collected during testing. Subsurface methods increase the volume 

of soil examined, thereby increasing the chances of recovering 

diagnostic cultural material and radiocarbon samples that will help 

identify the temporal component present. Recovery of tools

assists in identifying intra-site structure and contribute to the

overall interpretation of site types. Subsurface testing is a major 

means of assessing the physical and cultural integrity of a site and 

provides valuable information on the data potential present.

Shovel Tests: The excavation of shovel-test units (round or

square no larger than 0.25 meters) within a project/site area is a 

quick and efficient method of obtaining site-specific information. 

In order to obtain data on site boundaries and artifact variability 

both horizontally and vertically on the site, the spacing and depth 

of units should be carefully selected. As previously discussed 

under Surface Investigation Guidelines (Section 3.3.1) information 

from the Phase IB survey should be used to establish these

parameters.

For example, if the results of the Phase IB investigations revealed 

that a large, uniform distribution of artifacts was present, then 

shovel tests spaced at 10-meter intervals may be justified. 

However, if discreet artifact clustering is identified, then interval 

no greater than 5 meters are warranted. Similarly, if the Phase IB 

investigations isolated a sub-plowzone component, then depth of 

all shovel tests should exceed the maximum depth of artifacts 

previously identified by at least 10 centimeters. On deep, floodAttachment E to the Draft Programmatic Agreement for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program
6

plain deposited soils, it may be prudent to extend all shovel -tests 

to a minimum depth of 1.0 meter. If information obtained in the 

previous Phase I investigations, Phase II excavations or soil

borings indicate that deeply buried stratified cultural deposits may 

exist in a project area, mechanically excavated trenches may be 

appropriate to determine the presence/absence of such phenomena.

All excavated soils should be screened through hardware cloth no 

greater than 1/4 inch in size. If it is expected that large number of 

small artifacts may be present, such as beads and micro-flakes, 

then a sample of the soil should be passed through 1/8 inch or 

smaller mesh, as well. Artifacts from the plowzone and different 

soil levels should be provenienced separately. 

The results of the shovel-testing program should be sufficient to 

provide an accurate estimation of the site boundaries, at least 

within the project limits and to prepare a distribution map

identifying the amount, degree, and type of artifact clustering

present.

Test-Unit Excavations: Test-unit excavations are larger, more 

rigorously controlled excavation units that shove-test units. 

Common types of test units are squares and trenches. Units 

usually measure a minimum of 1.00 square meters and rarely 

exceed 5.00 square meters. This range accommodates 1.00 x 1.00 

meter squares as well as 1.00 meter wide x 5.00 meter long 

trenches. The size, configuration, and depth of excavation units 

are contingent upon parameters derived from the Phase IB survey 

as well as the information collected during surface survey and 

shovel-testing.

Excavation units should be placed in those areas of the site most 

likely to yield data relevant to adequately address the goals and 

objectives of the Phase II investigations. Placement of test units

should reflect the results of the systematic surface survey and/or 

shovel-testing program as well as the expectations regarding site 

type/function. For prehistoric sites, this may mean excavation of 

test units within clusters of high artifact concentrations; on historic 

sites, placement of units adjacent to foundation walls or in

suspected midden locations may be appropriate.

During Phase II field work, it is not necessary to aim for

excavation of a specific sampling fraction of the entire site area. 

Rather, it is more important to provide coverage of all the artifact 

clusters and structural features present since these are the areas 

likely to yield the most information on the site.

The choice of natural vs. arbitrary excavation levels and level 

thickness should facilitate the controlled collection of information 

necessary for evaluating site significance. Units should be

excavated by hand using trowels or shovel skimmed; features

should always be trowelled. It is common for the plowzone to be 

removed as one natural layer. However, it is rarely appropriate to 

remove the subsoil as a layer. Instead the subsoil (and unplowed 

topsoils) should be excavated in arbitrary levels within natural 

stratigraphic layers. The thickness of each arbitrary level should 

never exceed 10 centimeters.

In general, all measurements should be recorded in the metric 

system with English equivalents reported in parentheses. 

However, in cases of historic sites, when considered appropriate 

and approved by the SHPO, measurements may be recorded in 

feet and inches with metric equivalents reported in parentheses. In 

urban settings, where mechanized equipment is used to remove 

asphalt and fill, particular care must be taken to maintain vertical 

and horizontal control via careful measurements in those instances 

where excavation in predetermined thicknesses is not possible.

All excavation units must have appropriate documentation

including profiles of at least one wall, feature plans and profiles 

and photographic documentation. All appropriate samples should 

be collected even when funds are not immediately available for 

their analysis. For instance, soil samples from features and unit 

levels and carbon samples should be routinely collected for 

present or future analysis .

Remote Sensing: Remote sensing covers all techniques that use 

other than excavation and physical inspection methods to observe 

and record subsurface phenomena. Frequently, techniques include 

soil resistivity, proton magnetometer, gradiometer, ground

penetrating radar (GPR), and various photographic techniques

(aerial, infrared, etc.).

In order for the data collected through the use of remote sensing

techniques to be of value in evaluation the nature, extent, and 

importance of an archaeological resource, caution is necessary in 

using these techniques and interpreting their results. First, the 

archaeologist must clearly understand the characteristic of the data 

recovered and the potential limitations of the technique being 

utilized. Second, the natural geophysical properties of an area are 

important and will directly affect the results. Close coordination 

between the archeologist and the geophysical specialist are thus 

necessary to ensure accurate interpretation of the data. Third, the 

nature and importance of phenomena identified through remote 

sensing must be evaluated through actual excavation and

recording of some, or all the phenomena unless anomalies will be 

avoided.

3.4 Phase II Analysis and Report

The archaeologist must provide sufficient information about the 

site to allow the review agency to make a determination of

eligibility to the State or National Register of Historic Places; to 

assess the expected impacts to the site from the proposed

construction; and to offer recommendations to mitigate the

adverse impact either through avoidance, redesign, data recovery, 

recordation, or a combination of these. The archaeologist should 

provide an explicit discussion of the sites(s) eligibility, or noneligibility for listing on the State or Nation Register based on the 

data collected during the Phase II investigation. The rationale for 

evaluation of significance should be clearly stated and justified. 

The report should also include a discussion of the impacts that are 

likely to occur on the site(s) if the project proceeds as planned and 

offer appropriate recommendations for resource management or 

impact mitigation.

Attachment E to the Draft Programmatic Agreement for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program
7

If site avoidance is recommended for a cultural resource, the

report should include detailed site protection requirements to be 

implemented before, during and after construction to ensure that 

the resource is not accidentally impacted. If Phase III data

recovery investigations are recommended for all or part of a site as 

an appropriate means of mitigation, the archaeologist should

provide recommendations that should he used the basis for

developing a data recovery plan (see Section 4.2).

3.5 Urban Contexts

Due to the complex and diverse of implementing regulations 

methods in urban contexts, Phase II field strategies should be

undertaken only after intensive documentary and map research has 

been completed for the parcel under study. The field strategies 

selected to obtain sufficient information for addressing the State or 

National Register criteria should he formulated in consultation

with the appropriate reviewing agency.

3.6 Underwater Sites

As with urban contexts, submerged sites constitute a special

category of cultural resources. Phase II methods should be

designed in cooperation with the reviewing agency in compliance 

with specific guidelines for the systematic and scientific conduct 

of these types of investigations. 

3.7 Supplemental Phase II Investigations

In specific cases, where a site with unique, historically

documented data is excavated, but the Phase II excavations do not 

recover the physical evidence expected, it may be appropriate for 

all involved parties to consider additional Phase II investigations, 

undertaking archaeological monitoring during the initial phases of 

construction, or site stripping. As an example, if strong

documentary evidence exists for the presence of human burials, 

but none is discovered during the field investigations, it may be 

appropriate to conduct supplemental monitoring during

preliminary site preparations or construction to identify such

features if present. Where such monitoring is employed,

contingency plans should be made to implement resource

evaluation and data recovery and such plans should be accounted 

for in archaeological and construction schedules. Monitoring is, 

however, never a substitute for adequate Phase II Investigations.

3.8 Disposition of Collections

Provision for the responsible curation of the archaeological

collection (material remains and associated record) generated as a 

result of Phase II investigation at an acceptable repository is an 

integral part of any site evaluation. Arrangements must be made 

in advance of any field work for the proper processing,

documentation, and curation of collections as outlined in the 

Standard for the Curation of Archaeological Collections (Section 

7). 

4.0 PHASE III CULTURAL RESOURCE

 INVESTIGATIONS: DATA RECOVERY

Phase III Cultural Resource Investigations are required if an

archaeological/historical resource listed on or eligible for

inclusion on the State or National Register of Historic Places is 

identified and impacts to this resource by a proposed project are 

anticipated. When a data recovery plan is developed, it should be 

based on a balanced combination of resource-preservation, 

engineering, environmental and economic concerns. Mitigation

may take the form of avoidance through project redesign,

reduction of the direct impacts on the resource with data recovery 

on the portion to be destroyed, data recovery prior to construction, 

recordation of structural remains, and/or a combination of the

above.

4.1 Goals of Phase III Data Recovery/Impact Mitigation

While varying quantities and quality of data are collected during 

Phase I and Phase II cultural resource investigations, Phase III 

investigations are specifically designed to recover information 

contained in a significant archaeological site before all or part of it 

is destroyed. Thus the goals of Phase III Data Recovery/Impact 

Mitigation excavations focus on collecting and preserving cultural, 

environmental, and any other data of value form a site before it is 

lost. Due to the project-specific nature of this phase, data

recovery plans should be development on a case-by case basis in 

consultation with the SHPO, project sponsor, interested parties, 

and other involved state and federal agencies.

4.2 Phase II Research Design/Data Recovery Plan

A research design is an integral part of any professional

archaeological project. In any Phase III investigations, a research 

design takes the form of a data recovery plan that must be

approved by the SHPO and other involved state and federal

agencies prior to commencement of work. The data recovery plan

shall be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards

and guidelines for Archaeological Documentation (48 FR 44734-

37) and take into account the Council's publication, Treatment of 

Archaeological Properties (Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation, (draft) 1980). The data recovery plan should reflect 

a knowledge of the existing archaeological/historic database and 

research questions considered important at the local, regional

and/or national level. The data recovery plan must provide a

detailed discussion of the research topics and questions to be

addressed; the types of data that must be gathered in order to 

address these questions; strategies and methodology for recovery 

of the necessary data; methods of analysis and interpretation; a 

schedule for completion of various aspects of the investigations; 

the name and background of all key project personnel and

consultants who will participate in the research; disposition of

collections and field records; and any other necessary information 

deemed appropriate by the SHPO and other involved state and 

federal agencies or the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.

4.3 Phase III field Work/Excavation Guidelines

Data Recovery should be as complete as possible. It should be 

tailored to the research questions established in the data recovery

plan, and to whatever degree possible, to future archaeological 

research. The basic fie ld work and excavation guidelines

established for Phase I and Phase II investigations should be

followed for any similar work undertaken in this phase. As a 

general rule, artifactual information should not be sacrificed for 

feature information and vice versa. Whenever possible,

Attachment E to the Draft Programmatic Agreement for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program
8

mechanized stripping should be restricted to that portion of the site 

expected to be destroyed.

When preparing to undertake field work for a Phase III data

recovery program an archaeologist must be prepared to provide 

the following; an explicit statement of the procedures used to 

collect the archaeological data; an explanation and justification of 

the methodology employed in data collection and recording; a

discussion of the system for identifying and recording the spatial 

and contextual provenience of cultural material and other physical 

data; detailed descriptions of specialized procedures such as

flotation, soil chemistry (pH, phosphates, etc), and collection of 

radiocarbon samples; and any other relevant information as

deemed appropriate by the reviewing agency.

Structural components such as depositional strata and cultural 

features identified during subsurface testing should be fully and 

accurately described and documented by acceptable means.

Locations of all sampling and testing units should be recorded on 

project/site maps. Any important contextual relationships and

associations between objects, cultural features, and environmental 

features should be described and explained.

Unless a site is to be completely destroyed, permanent reference 

points should be established at the site to facilitate relocation of 

excavation units and features.

4.4 Phase III Analysis and Report

The Phase III report is expected to be special in both content and 

format. The description, analysis, and interpretation of

information collected should consider all forms of data collected. 

The reader should be given as complete and accurate an

understanding of the site, its function, temporal and cultural 

affiliations, etc. as possible. All types of data analyzed (e.g. 

faunal, floral, geological or geomorphological, architectural,

historical) should be integrated into site interpretation.

Any additions or modifications to the approved data recovery plan 

should be explained and justified. In addition, decisions made 

after field work has been completed as to whether or not to

analyze all data collected should be addressed.

Excavation units and any other subsurface tests should be

described in detail including stratigraphic profiles, soil conditions 

and characteristics, depths of deposits; and description and

justification for excavation techniques. Depending on the nature 

and complexity of the site, it may be appropriate to discuss

individual excavation units separately or to treat common deposits 

located in more than one unit together.

All laboratory procedures relevant to artifact and special sample 

processing, differential handling of certain classes of material, 

artifact identification and cataloging, and storage should be

discussed.

Any previous applicable work should be incorporated into the

analysis of the site. Examples of such work would include, but not 

be restricted to local and regional work that is directly related to 

the site, culture(s), or time period(s) represented; related work in 

other geographic areas; theoretical or descriptive archaeological 

work; and any relevant research or information from other

disciplines that have direct bearing on the analyses and

interpretation of data collected at this site.

The report should include a discussion of contributions and

potential contributions the Phase III investigations have made or 

could make to state, local, or national prehistory or history as 

appropriate. It may also be possible to discuss the study's

contributions to broad anthropological and theoretical issues or to 

the State Plan if data generated during the investigations are

suitable for such purposes.

Finally, the archaeologist should disseminate the information to 

the archaeological community and the lay public. An integral part 

of any data recovery should be publications, presentations at

meetings and/or community programs, such slide talks and

exhibits.

4.5 Supplemental Phase III Investigations

If an approved Phase III data recovery plan does not result in 

recovery of the physical evidence known to exist at a particular 

site and if the site will be destroyed, then all involved parties 

should strongly consider undertaking archaeological monitoring

during the initial phase of construction or additional Phase III 

investigations which could possibly include mechanized site

stripping. Archaeologically supervised stripping or site

destruction under archaeological control can be a very effective 

means of evaluating the validity of a project field research design, 

particularly if the data recovery plan employs a sampling regime. 

It provides a means of assuring that data collected during the

implementation of the data recovery plane are representative of 

the true nature of the archaeological site. Destruction under

control may also be applicable to situations where looting of 

uncollected materials within the project impact zone may occur 

following the completion of data recovery. As previously noted, 

Phase III investigations are specifically designed to recover

information contained in a significant archaeological site before 

all or part of is destroyed. If deemed appropriate, this

supplemental work should ensure that the goals of Phase III are 

satisfied before the site and its associated data are lost. Under no 

circumstances should such activities be undertaken on sites or

portions of sites not subject to imminent destruction. Monitoring 

is not a substitute for an adequate Phase III investigation. 

4.6 Disposition of Collections

Provisions for the responsible curation of the archaeological 

collection (material remains and associated collections) generated 

as a result of Phase III investigations at an acceptable repository is 

an integral part of any data recovery plan. Arrangements must be 

made in advance of any field work for the proper processing,

documentation, and curation of collections as outlined in

Standards for the Curation of Archaeological Collections (Section 

7).

Attachment E to the Draft Programmatic Agreement for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program
9

5.0 DISCOVERY OF HUMAN REMAINS

The discovery of human remains and items of cultural patrimony 

as defined by Section 3001 of the Native American Graves 

Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) in any phase of

cultural resource investigations requires special consideration and 

care. Any discoveries of human remains on State lands must be 

reported to the State Museum. At all times human remains must be

treated with the utmost dignity and respect. Should human burials

be encountered, the location should immediately be secured and 

protected from damage and disturbance. Unless burial excavation 

is the purpose of or an explicit component of the approved

research design, human remains should be left in-situ until

consultation with the project sponsor, the SHPO, federally

recognized Native American groups, concerned parties, and

involved state and federal agencies has taken place. The

excavation, study and disposition of human remains should take 

place in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local 

laws. The NYAC Policy on Human Remains (dated 1972. 

Appendix B) and Guidelines for Consideration of Traditional

Cultural Values in Historic Preservation Review published by the 

President's Advisory Council on Historic Preservation can provide 

helpful guidance on the proper treatment of human remains.

6.0 STANDARDS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF CRM

REPORTS

The following report guidelines summarize general content and 

suggested formats for any CRM report. It is understood that 

reports written for agencies that have their own specific report 

requirements should be written accordingly, but these reports

should also include the information outlined in these standards. 

The National Park Service report format is also an appropriate

model for reports. 

These standards have not been designed to exclude categories of 

information not listed, nor to offer a rigid format for final reports. 

It is also important to note that repots are expected to pertain only 

to the level of research and analysis appropriate to the level of 

cultural resource investigation undertaken. In addition, these

standards have been prepared under the assumption that CRM 

reports must fulfill the needs of the lead agency involved as well 

as those of any other reviewer. Finally, any report prepared in 

accordance with NYAC standards should include completed New 

York State Prehistoric or Historic Archaeological Site Forms and 

Building Structure Inventory forms where appropriate.

For the purposes of these guidelines, a "reviewer" is anyone who 

reads, examines, or studies the report for a lead agency, 

municipality, citizen group. university, or similar body in order to 

evaluate the cultural resource investigations completed, the results 

and the recommendations.

Given the potential distribution of the CRM report, it is also

important to provide information that will allow appropriate

reviewers the opportunity to make informed evaluations but at the 

same time protect the fragile archaeo1ogical/histoircal resource

base from potential dangers posed by unscrupulous individuals. 

As such some type of non-disclosure statement or method of site 

location protection within the report will be required.

6.1 Title Page

Each report should contain a title page that provides at least the 

following: the title of the report, including the level of

investigation (e.g. Phase IA. lB, I, II, or III); the name and 

location of the minor civil subdivision (city/village/town, county, 

state) of the project; any pertinent project identification number 

(e.g. Highway PIN, Permit Number); author(s). contributor(s),

project director(s), principal investigator(s); date report was

prepared; name and address of the project sponsor for whom the 

report was prepared; and the organizational affiliation with 

address of the archaeological consultant.

6.2 Table of Contents

The table of contents should be arranged in a logical manner and 

should constitute a list of primary and secondary internal divisions 

of the report with their beginning page numbers. Lists of figures, 

tables, and plates (with page numbers) should immediately follow 

the list of section headings. They may be listed on separate pages 

if the lists are lengthy. It may also be appropriate to list authors of 

sections and subsections in the proper place within the table of 

contents.

A typical report table of contents may include the following: 

Management Summary; Introduction; Environmental/Physical

Setting; Background Research and Sensitivity Assessment;

Research Design; Field Methods and Procedures; Results;

Summary, conclusions, and recommendations; References Cited; 

Acknowledgements; Appendixes: List of figures; List of Tables; 

and List of Photographs/Plates.

6.3Management Summary

The management summary, like an abstract, should serve as a

brief, clear outline of the proposed project, the investigations,

results, and recommendations. It is often used by nonarchaeologists and should be written with this category of reader

as well as any agency reviewer in mind. 

The management summary should include sections outlining the 

following: project location, project description, project size; 

regulatory and/or lead agency, landform/ environment, work

completed, problems encountered, results, and conclusions and 

recommendations.

 

6.4 Introduction

The introduction should outline and summarize all pertinent

sections of the report and should include at least the following:

(1) The names of the project sponsor and the contact person; 

the date on which the consultant was contacted to perform the 

work; the date on which the parties contracted to perform the 

investigations; contract numbers and permit/project numbers;

legislation relevant to the work.

Attachment E to the Draft Programmatic Agreement for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program
10

(2) A written description of the proposed project including 

the nature of the construction or land alteration, geographic limits 

of the project areas, potential impacts, and project alternatives, if 

any are known

(3) The purpose of the investigations, discussion of the scope 

of work, and the report format

(4) The composition of the research staff and the dates of 

investigation

(5) The temporary and permanent repositories of field data, 

artifacts, and other import project materials

(6) Sufficient maps and illustrations to identify the project 

location including, but not necessarily restricted to, the location of 

the project within the state and county, the location of the project 

area on a named USGS 7.5’ topographic map or DOT map, and a 

project area map

6.5 Environmental/ Physical Setting

This section of the report should summarize the environmental 

factors relating to actual and potential cultural resources, including 

archaeological sites, landscapes and extant structures within or 

adjacent to the project area. This information is necessary for both 

developing research methods and for evaluating project impact. 

Minimally, the following should be included, with accompanying 

maps where appropriate; geology, soils, hydrology, physiography/ 

geomorphology, climate, flora, fauna, and recent human/ natural 

disturbance.

6.6 Background Research and Sensitivity Assessment

The section summarizing the background research and sensitivity 

assessment should be written in such a manner as to assist

reviewers in understanding and evaluating the importance of

archaeological resources in the project area as well as the rationale 

for any further research recommended. The following general 

guidelines apply for reporting the results of the background

literature search and sensitivity assessment: specify the steps taken 

in obtaining information; cite all sources including oral testimony, 

and provide full references in the report; explain omissions and 

lack of cultural activity where pertinent to the conclusions of the 

sensitivity assessment; provide a summary of the cultural

background and environmental attributes and limitations of the

area; review information on known archaeological and other

cultural resources and previous studies in the area; include

information on the foci and extent of previous coverage of the area 

and the research questions addressed; and specify where all 

records resulting from the background research will be curated. 

DO NOT provide specific site locations in reports for public 

distribution;

6.6.1 Background Research

Summaries of the following should be covered under Background 

Research: site file searches at the state and local levels;

archaeological literature search, including both published and

unpublished sources; examination of historic maps and archival 

information; searches of State and National Register files at SHPO, 

specifying SRHP/NRHP-listed, SRHP/NRHP-eligible, and

SRHW/NRHP-inventoried sites; informant interviews;

examination of institutional and private artifact collections; 

consultation with other professional archaeologists, locally active 

historians, and municipal authorities; field visit(s); the person(s) 

involved, the date of the visit, and the observations made.

A table listing the known cultural resources within a one-mile 

radius of project area should be included in the report with maps 

(see above re reports for public distribution) and photographs 

where appropriate.

6.6.2 Sensitivity Assessments

Summaries of the following should be covered under Sensitivity 

Assessment: the sensitivity rating expressed as low, moderate, 

high, or mixed, that reflects the likelihood that cultural resources 

are present within the project area; definition of the rating system 

used and its implications for further research; discussion of the 

types and conditions of cultural resources likely to be found within 

the project area; rationale for assigning the sensitivity rating; and 

relevant environmental and/or historic contexts such as those in 

SHPO's list developed for state-wide planning (see Section 2.21).

6.7 Research Design

The research design should reflect a knowledge of the existing 

database and research questions considered important at least at the 

local and regional levels. The degree of complexity or detail 

should be appropriate to the level of investigations undertaken.

This section of the report should include the following: an 

identification of the theoretical goals as stated in the form of 

specific hypothesis to be tested or problems to be investigated: the 

identification of the relevant analytical variables; specification of 

the data necessary for empirical testing: specification and

justification of the methods and techniques for collecting and 

studying the data; and discussion of possible outcomes of the

analyses.

6.8 Field Methods and Procedures

This section of a Phase I report should include discussions of the 

following: walkover survey strategies designed to determine the 

presence of visible foundations, artifact scatters, disturbed ground, 

Excessive slope, etc.; the type and size of excavation/ collection 

unit used to locate resources and the reasons for this selection (e.g. 

shovel-test units for artifact recovery, larger units for surface

collections, trenches for identifying buried historic foundations or 

deeply buried prehistoric sites); testing interval and design (e.g. 

single transect, regular grid, staggered grid) and rationale for this 

selection; when plowing and collecting, the length and interval 

between furrows, whether cultural material was piece-plotted or 

collected in systematically placed units, type weather and ground 

conditions (e.g. cloudy vs. bright sun, dry vs. moist soil, adequacy 

of potential artifact visibility); excavation and artifact recovery 

techniques (e.g. shovel vs. machine excavation, natural vs.

arbitrary layers/ levels, depth to sterile soil, remote sensing

methods, soil stripping strategies) and rationale; average depth of 

Attachment E to the Draft Programmatic Agreement for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program
11

test units; typical soil profiles; the size of screen mesh; the

adequacy of horizontal and vertical survey coverage; areas not 

surveyed and reasons why; and the potential biases in results (if 

any) from gaps in coverage.

This section of a Phase II report should, in addition, include 

discussions of the following: the type and size of excavation/ 

collection units used during the site examination; the field

sampling strategy and rationale for its selection; the excavation/ 

collection techniques and how these relate to the data expected; 

and any impediments to the site examination that may have

influenced the results.

This section of a Phase III report should, in addition, include 

discussions of the following: explanation of and justifications for 

the data recovery field strategy and methods; the treatment and 

analysis of floral, faunal, or other organic matter recovered; and all 

laboratory procedures relating to the stabilization, labeling,

cataloging, and storage of artifacts and records, including the

curation facility.

6.9 Results

The results section of a report should clearly outline in the text and 

on maps the project boundaries, testing strategies, and cultural 

resources identified during testing. Depending upon the specific 

nature of the project and the investigations undertaken, it may be 

the site(s), standing structures, single test units, or single artifacts 

recovered from a plowed field that serve as the primary unit of 

discussion. Descriptions may be organized by starting at one end 

of a project area and moving to the other or by grouping similar 

resources together (e.g. all prehistoric resources separate from 

historic resources and standing structures).

6.9.1 Components of a Phase I Report

Key components of this section of the text for a Phase I report 

should include the following: project site; the number of and 

intervals between shovel test units (with the shovel-test unit

records included as an appendix); the number of tests actually 

excavated; the number of units, if any, that produced cultural 

material; the numbers and types of artifacts recovered and their 

cultural affiliation, if known (with the artifact list/ catalog included 

as an appendix); the nature of the artifact distribution (e.g., clusters 

of artifacts, uniform scatter, random distribution, features); 

physiographic context of the artifacts (e.g., floodplain. Terrace, 

swamp, lake); stratigraphic context of the artifacts (e.g. surface, 

plowzone, buried); lists of all standing structures that are at least 

50 years old as well as structures that are less than 50 years old and 

are exempt from Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic 

Preservation (OPRHP) guidelines; site and structure inventory

forms for all prehistoric and historic archaeological sites and

standing structures that are at least 50 years old; and a master 

project map that details the testing strategy and results. 

6.9.2 Components of a Phase II Report

Key components of this section of the text for a Phase II report 

should include the following: the number of each type of

excavation unit used in the site examination including detailed 

descriptions of typical and unusual profiles of excavation units; the 

range of artifact types recovered from testing (with the artifact

Catalog included as an appendix); the average density of material 

per unit as well as other summary statistics that help describe the 

site; the estimated site size and the Proportion of the site contained 

within the project boundaries; the size of the area actually 

excavated (total sq. m); the nature of the vertical stratification of 

the site (e.g. site contained within the plow zone, sub-plowzone, 

layered in the sub-plowzone); any internal clustering within the 

site; the types of features present (with photographs, floor plans, 

and profiles included as appropriate); temporal associations of the 

sites based on diagnostic artifacts or radiocarbon dating if

available; summaries of floral, faunal and, other specialized 

analyses; summaries of functional, technological, and stylistic 

analyses of specific artifact groups; interpretations of site function; 

interpretations of the place of the site within a larger temporal, 

regional, or theoretical context and research potential of the site.

6.9.3 Components of a Phase III Report

Key components of this section of the text for a Phase III report 

should include the following: complete artifact inventories

integrating all phases of investigation; results of artifact analyses; 

results of all floral, faunal, and radiocarbon analyses; integration 

and interpretation of the results of all tests and analyses; the

application of these integrated results to the research questions and 

goals of the study as made explicit in the research design; all 

pertinent plans and sections of excavation units and features

encountered; and any biases or extraneous factors that may have 

affected the outcome of the excavations and analyses. All Phase III 

report photographs, tables, maps, and other graphics should be of 

publishable quality and follow National Park Service guidelines.

6.9.4 Project Map Specifications

Project maps should include the following: an outline of the

project boundaries in reference to fixed features such as roadways, 

power lines, rivers, canals, and railroads; the locations of all 

important features within the project boundaries such as standing 

structures, ditches, and disturbed areas; the locations of all test 

units actually excavated or collected differentiated according to 

those that contained artifacts and those that did not; the locations 

of all suspected artifact clusters and features such as foundations, 

wells, and middens; the identification of all structures that are at 

least 50 years old or other important standing structures in the

project area; numbered photo angles of all photographs included 

in the text: a title block identifying the project name, location, date 

of investigation, and contractor performing the survey; key to all 

symbols used on the map; a bar scale using both English and 

metric measurements; and a north arrow (specify whether grid, 

magnetic, or geographic).

Maps accompanying a Phase II report should, in addition to the 

information listed for project maps. Include the following:

estimates of site boundaries; detailed maps of all individual site 

excavations; site locations labeled with site name and number 

locations of features and any radiocarbon dated samples. Maps 

accompanying a Phase III report should also include the locations 

Attachment E to the Draft Programmatic Agreement for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program
12

of all excavation units, backhoe trenches, and areas of machine 

stripping.

Attachment E to the Draft Programmatic Agreement for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program
13

6.10 Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations

The final section of an archaeological survey report should serve 

as a stand-alone summary of the activities and findings reported in 

detail in the body of the report.

6.10.1 Components of a Phase I Report

For a Phase I report, this section should summarize the scope, 

methodology, areal coverage, and findings of the investigations; 

identify any areas where archaeological materials were discovered; 

point out gaps in survey coverage or areas where weather, owneraccess refusal, or other conditions prevented or necessitated less 

than thorough investigations; indicate the institutional repository 

for artifacts, field notes, and records for the project; evaluate the 

results of the investigations in terms of the project's theoretical 

orientation, bias., and assumptions identified in the research

design; compare the results of the investigations to those of others 

conducted in the area; place the study within a regional context in 

terms of its contribution to regional knowledge and the degree to 

which its results reflect what is known of the area; assess the

project impact; explain the need for and general scope of

additional work, if any; make and justify recommendations for 

project modifications to protect sites if accurate site boundaries can 

be established; and consider secondary effects of the project as 

well as the direct impacts (e.g. housing development resulting 

from road, sewer, or waterline construction or site isolation

resulting from gravel mining.

6.10.2 Components of a Phase II Report

For a Phase II report, this section should summarize the arguments 

regarding the significance or non-significance of the resources 

investigated; state whether or not sufficient information has been 

collected to address the criteria for eligibility for listing on the

State of National Registers of Historic Places such as information 

pertinent to the integrity, research potential, and the adequacy of 

horizontal and vertical boundary information; and present possible 

options for the treatment of ant resources considered significant 

(e.g. avoidance through redesign, protective conditions, and/or data 

recovery) along with specific recommendations as to how these 

might be implemented.

6.10.3 Components of a Phase III Report

For a Phase III report this section should include summaries of the 

research design and of the recovery, analysis, and interpretation of 

information collected during the data recovery program; an

evaluation of the success of the data recovery plan and any

modifications made to it; an interpretation of data recovered from 

the site(s) and their importance in relation to the relevant to the 

historic context(s) established for the region; a discussion of

contributions the Phase III investigations have made to the current 

state of knowledge of prehistory or history and the state plan; 

recommendations for updating or revising research questions, 

goals, and preservation priorities in the state historic preservation 

plan; recommendations for supplemental Phase III investigations, 

if appropriate (Section 4.5); recommendations for the conservation, 

short-term, and long-term curation of the collection; and finally, 

recommendations for dissemination of all appropriate information 

to the archaeological community and public outreach programs.

6.11.1 References Cited

Every effort should he made to insure that this part of the report is 

complete and accurate. We urge the consistent adoption of the 

American Antiquity format and refer readers to its most recently 

Published style guide.

7.0 STANDARDS FOR THE CURATION OF

 ARCHAEOLOGICAL COLLECTIONS1

7.1. Definitions

For the Purposes of these standards, the following definitions 

apply:

7.1.1. Collection means material remains that are excavated or 

removed during a survey, excavation or other study of a prehistoric 

or historic resource, and associated records that are prepared or 

assembled in connection with the survey, excavation, or other 

study. 

7.1.2 Material remains means artifacts, objects, specimens 

and other physical evidence that are excavated or removed in 

connection with efforts to locate, evaluate, document, study,

preserve or recover a prehistoric or historic resource. Classes of 

material remains (and illustrative examples) that maybe in a

collection include, but are not limited to:

(A) Components of structures and features (such as houses, mills, 

piers, fortifications, raceways, earthworks, and mounds);

(B) Intact or fragmentary artifacts of human manufacture (such as 

tools, weapons, pottery, pottery, basketry, and textiles);

(C) Intact or fragmentary natural objects used by humans (such as 

rock crystals, feathers , and pigments);

(D) By-products, waste products or debris resulting from the 

manufacture or use of man-made or natural materials (such as 

slag, dumps, cores, and debitage);

(E) Organic material (such as vegetable and animal remains, and 

coprolites);

(F) Human remains (such as bone, teeth, mummified flesh,

burials, and cremations);

(G) Components of petroglyphs, pictographs, intaglios or other 

works of artistic or symbolic representation;

(H) Components of shipwrecks (such as pieces of the ship’s hull, 

rigging, armaments, apparel, tackle, contents, and cargo);

(I) Environmental and chronometric specimens (such as pollen, 

seeds, wood, shell, bone, charcoal, tree core samples, soil, 

sediment cores, obsidian, volcanic ash, and baked clay);and

(J) Paleontological specimens that are found in direct physical 

relationship with the prehistoric or historic resource.

Attachment E to the Draft Programmatic Agreement for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program
14

1 Adapted from Department of the Interior, National Park 

Service 356 CFR 79 and the Standards of Research

Performance of the Society of Professional Archaeologists.

7.1.3. Associated records means original records (or copies 

thereof) that are prepared, assembled and document efforts to

locate, evaluate, record, study, preserve, or recover a prehistoric or 

historic resource. Some records such as field notes, artifact

inventories, and oral histories may be originals that are prepared as 

a result of the fieldwork, analysis, and report preparation. Other 

records such as deeds, survey plans, historical maps and diaries 

may be copies of original public or archival documents that are 

assembled and studied as a result of historical research.

Classes of associated records (and illustrative examples) that may 

be in a collection include, but are not limited to:

(A) Records relating to the identification, evaluation,

documentation, study, preservation or recovery of a resource 

(such as site forms, field notes, drawings, maps, photographs, 

slides, negatives, films, video and audio cassette tapes, oral 

histories, artifact inventories, laboratory reports, computer 

cards and tapes, computer disks and diskettes, printouts of 

computerized data, manuscripts, reports, and accession,

catalog, and inventory records);

(B) Records relating to the identification of a resources using 

remote sensing methods and equipment (such as satellite and 

aerial photography and imagery, side scan sonar,

magnetometers, subbottom profilers, radar, and fathometers);

(C) Public records essential to understanding the resource )such as 

deeds, survey plats, military and census records, birth,

marriage, and death certificates, immigration and

naturalization papers, tax forms, and reports);

(D) Archival records essential to understanding the resource (such 

as historical maps, drawings and photographs, manuscripts, 

architectural and landscape plans, correspondence, diaries, 

ledgers, catalogs, and receipts);and

(E) Administration records relating to the survey excavation or 

other study of the resource (such as scopes of work, requests 

for proposals, research proposals, contracts, antiquities

permits, reports, documents relating to compliance with

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act [16 

U.S.C. 47f], and National Register of Historic Places

nomination and determination of eligibility forms). 

7.1.4 Curatorial services means providing curatorial services 

means managing and preserving a collection according to

professional museum and archival practices, including but not 

limited to:

(A) Inventorying, accessioning, labeling, and cataloging a

collection;

(B) Identifying, evaluating, and documenting a collection;

(C) Storing and maintaining a collection using appropriate

methods and containers, under appropriate environmental

conditions and physically secure controls;

(D) Periodically inspecting a collection and taking actions as may 

be necessary to preserve it;

(E) Providing access and facilities to study a collection; and

(F) Handling, cleaning, stabilizing, and conserving a collection in 

such a manner to preserve it.

7.1.5 Qualified museum professional means a person who

possesses training, knowledge, experience and demonstrable

competence in museum methods and techniques appropriate to the 

nature and content of the collection under the person's

management and care, and commensurate with the person's duties 

and responsibilities. In general, a graduate degree in museum 

science or subject matter applicable to archaeology, or equivalent 

training and experience, and three years of professional experience 

are required for museum positions that demand independent

professional responsibility as well as subject specialization

(archaeology) and scholarship. Standards that may be used, as 

appropriate, for classifying positions and evaluating a person’s 

qualifications include, but are not limited to, the following federal 

guidelines:

(A) The Office of Personnel Management's “Position

Classification Standards for Positions under the General 

Schedule Classification System" (U.S. Government Printing 

Office, stock No. 906-028-00000-0, 1981) are used by

Federal agencies to determine appropriate occupational series 

and grade levels for positions in the Federal service.

Occupational series most commonly associated with museum 

work are the museum curator series (GS/GM-1O15) and the 

museum technician and specialist series (GS/GM -1016).

Other scientific and professional series that may have

collateral museum duties include, but are not limited to, the 

archivist series (GS/GM -1420), the archeologist series

(GS/GM-193), the anthropologist series (GS/GM-190), and 

the historian series (GS/GM-170). In general, grades GS-9 

and below are assistants and trainees while grades GS -11 and 

above are determined according to the level of independent 

professional responsibility, degree of specialization and

scholarship, and the nature, variety, complexity, type, and 

scope of the work.

(B) The Office of Personnel Management’s "Qualification

Standards for Positions under the General Schedule

(Handbook X-118)" (U.S. Government Printing Office stock 

No. 906-030-00000-4, 1986) establish educational,

experience, and training requirements for emp loyment with 

the Federal Government under the various occupational

series. A graduate degree in museum science or applicable 

subject matter, or equivalent training and experience, and 

three years of professional experience are required for

museum positions at grades GS -11 and above.

(C) The "Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for 

Archeology and Historic Preservation" (48 FR 44716, Sept. 

29, 1983) provide technical advice about archeological and 

historic preservation activities and methods for use by

Federal, State and local Governments and others. One section 

presents qualification standards for a number of historic 

preservation professions. While no standards are presented 

for collections manager, museum curators or technicians,

standards are presented for other professions (i.e. historians, 

archeologists, architectural historians, architects, and historic 

architects) that may have collateral museum duties.

Attachment E to the Draft Programmatic Agreement for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program
15

7.2 Responsibilities of the Archaeologist

1. If material remains are collected as a result of a survey,

excavation, or other study of a prehistoric or historic resource, a 

system for identifying and recording their proveniences must be 

maintained.

2. All associated records from an archaeological project should be 

intelligible to other archaeologists. If terms lacking commonly 

held referents are used, they should be clearly defined. 

3. During accessioning, analysis, and storage of the material 

remains and associated records in the laboratory, the archaeologist 

must take precautions to ensure that correlations between the

material remains and the associated records are maintained, so that 

provenience, contextual relationships, and the like are not confused 

or obscured.

4. The archaeologist must ensure that a collection resulting from a 

project will be deposited at a repository that can provide curatorial 

services, that employs at least one qualified professional with 

experience in collections management/curation.

5. The initial processing of the material remains (including 

appropriate cleaning, sorting, labeling, cataloging, stabilizing, and 

packaging) must be completed, and associated records prepared 

and organized in accordance with the repository’s processing and 

documentation procedures.

6. A professional archaeologist should refuse to participate in any 

research, which does not comply with the above criteria .

7.3 Guidelines for Selecting a Repository

1. When possible, collections from New York should be deposited 

in a repository that:

(i) is in the state;

(ii) stores and maintains other collections from the 

same site or project location; or

(iii) houses collections from a similar geographic 

region or cultural area.

2. The collection should not be subdivided and stored at more than 

a single repository unless such subdivision in necessary to meet 

special storage, conservation, or research needs.

3. Material remains and associated records should be deposited in 

the same repository to maintain the integrity and research value of 

the collection.

7.4 Criteria for Institutions Serving as Repositories for

Archaeological Collections

1. The institution must be chartered as a museum by the Board of 

Regents of the State of New York or similar body, or be an 

institution of higher education recognized by the State of New 

York.

2. The repository must certify, in writing, that the collection shall 

be cared for, maintained, and made accessible in accordance with 

the standards in this part.

3. The repository must be able to provide adequate, long-term 

curational services including:

 (A) Accessioning, labeling, cataloging, storing, maintaining,

inventorying and conserving the particular collection on a longterm basis using professional museum and archival practices; and

 (B) Comply with the following, as appropriate to the nature and

content of the collection;

(1) Maintain complete and accurate records of the collection,

including:

 (a) records on acquisitions;

 (b) catalog and artifact inventory lists;

 (c) descriptive information, including field notes, site

 forms and reports

 (d) photographs, negatives, and slides;

 (e) locational information, including maps;

 (f) information on the condition of the collection,

 including any completed conservation treatments;

 (g) approved loans and other uses:

 (h) inventory and inspection records, including any

 environmental monitoring records;

 (i) records on any deaccessions and subsequent transfers,

 repatriations, or discards;

(2) Dedicating the requisite facilities, equipment, and space in 

the physical plant to properly store, study, and conserve the

collection. Space used for storage, study, conservation, and, if 

exhibited, any exhibition must not be used for non-curatorial 

purposes that would endanger or damage the collection;

(3) Keeping the collection under physically secure conditions 

with storage, laboratory, study, and any exhibition areas by

 (a) having the physical plant meet local electrical, fire,

 building, health and safety codes;

 (b) having an appropriate and operational fire detection 

 and suppression system;

 (c) having an appropriate and operational intrusion 

 detection and deterrent system;

 (d) having an adequate emergency management plan that 

 establishes procedures for responding to fires, floods, 

 natural disasters, civil unrest, acts of violence, 

 structural failures, and failures of mechanical systems 

 within the physical plant;

 (e) providing fragile or valuable items in a collection with 

 additional security such as locking the items in a safe, 

 vault, or museum specimen cabinet, as appropriate;

 (f) limiting and controlling access to keys, the collection, 

 and the physical plant; and

 (g) periodically inspecting the physical plant for possible 

 security weaknesses and environmental control 

 problems, and taking necessary actions to maintain the 

 integrity of the collection;

(4) Requiring staff and any consultants who are responsible for 

managing and preserving the collection, and for conducting

inspections and inventories as described in sections 3.(B)(7) and 3. 

(B)(8), to be either qualified museum professionals or professional 

archaeologists guided by a professional museum conservation

consultant.

(5) Handling, storing, cleaning, conserving and, if exhibited, 

exhibiting the collection in a manner that:

(a) is appropriate to the nature of the material 

 remains and associated records;

 (b) protects them from breakage and possible

 deterioration from adverse temperature and relative 

 humidity, visible light, ultraviolet radiation, dust, soot,

 gases, mold, fungus, insects, rodents, and general 

 neglect; and

 (c) preserves data that may be studied in future laboratory 

Attachment E to the Draft Programmatic Agreement for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program
16

 analyses. When material remains in a collection are to 

 be treated with chemical solutions or preservatives that 

 will permanently alter the remains, when possible, 

 retain untreated representative samples of each 

 affected artifact type, environmental specimen or other 

 category of material remains to be treated. Untreated 

 samples should not be stabilized or conserved beyond 

 dry brushing;

 (6) Storing site forms, field notes, artifacts, inventory lists, 

computer disks and tapes, catalog forms, and a copy of the final 

report in a manner that will protect them from theft and fire such as

 (a) storing the records in a an appropriate insulated, fire 

 resistant, locking cabinet, safe, vault or other container,

 or in a location with a fire suppression system;

 (b) storing a duplicate set of records in a separate 

 location; or

(c) ensuring that records are maintained and accessible 

through another party. For example, copies of final 

reports and site forms frequently maintained by the State 

Historic Preservation Officer, the State Archaeologist or 

the State museum or university. The Tribal Historic 

Preservation Officer and Indian tribal museum ordinarily 

maintain records on collections recovered from sites

located on Indian lands. The National Technical

Information Service and the Defense Technical

Information Service maintain copies of final reports that 

have been deposited by Federal agencies. The National 

Archeological Database maintains summary information 

on archeological reports and projects, including

information on the location of those reports.

(7) Periodically inspecting the collection or having a professional 

conservation assessment done regularly for the collection for the 

purposes of assessing the condition of the material remains and 

associated records, and monitoring those remains and records for 

possible deterioration and damage; and performing only those

actions as are absolutely necessary to stabilize the collection and 

rid it of any agents of deterioration. 

(a) Material remains and records of a fragile or

perishable nature should be inspected for

deterioration and damage on a more frequent basis 

than lithic or more stable remains or records.

(b) Because frequent handling will accelerate the

breakdown of fragile materials, material remains and 

records should be viewed but handled as little as 

possible during inspections

 (8) Periodically inventorying the collection by accession, lot, or

catalog record for the purpose of verifying the location of the

material remains and associated records

(a) Material remains and records of a valuable nature 

should be inventoried on a more frequent basis than 

other less valuable remains or records.

(b) Because frequent handling will accelerate the

breakdown of fragile materials, material remains and 

records should be viewed but handled as little as 

possible during inventories.

9) Providing access to the collection for scientific, educational, 

and religious uses, subject to such terms and conditions as are 

necessary to protect and preserve the condition, research potential, 

religious or sacred importance, and uniqueness of the collection, 

such as

(a) Scientific and educational uses. A collection shall be 

made available to qualified professionals for study, loan and 

use for such purposes such as in-house and travelling exhibits, 

teaching, public interpretation, scientific analysis, and 

scholarly research. Qualified professionals would include, but 

not be limited to, curators, conservators, collection managers, 

exhibitors, researchers, scholars, archaeological contractors, 

and educators. Students may use a collection when under the 

direction of a qualified professional.

(b) Religious uses. Religious remains in a collection shall be 

made available to persons for use in religious rituals or

spiritual activities. Religious remains generally are of interest 

to medicine men and women, and other religious practitioners 

and persons from Indian tribes, and other indigenous and 

immigrant ethnic, social, and religious groups that have

aboriginal or historic ties to the lands from which the remains 

are recovered, and have traditionally used the remains or class 

or remains in religious rituals or spiritual activities.

 (c) The repository shall not allow uses that would alter, 

damage, or destroy an object in a collection unless the

repository determines that such use is necessary for scientific 

studies or public interpretation, and the potential gain in 

scientific or interpretive information outweighs the potential 

loss of the object. When possible, such use should be limited 

to unprovenienced, non-unique, non-fragile objects, or to a 

sample of objects drawn from a larger collection of similar 

objects.

 (d) No collection (or part thereof) shall be loaned to any 

person without a written agreement between the repository 

and the borrower that specifies the terms and conditions of the 

loan. At a minimum, a loan agreement shall specify

(1) the collection or object being loaned;

(2) the purpose of the loan;

(3) the length of the loan

(4) any restrictions on scientific, educational or religious 

uses, including whether any object may be altered,

damaged or destroyed;

(5) except as provided in section 2(9)(c), the stipulation 

that the borrower shall handle the collection or object 

being borrowed during the term of the loan so as to not 

damage or educe its scientific, educational, religious, or 

cultural value; and

(6) any requirements for insuring the object or collection 

being borrowed for any loss, damage or destruction

during transit and while in the borrowers possession.

(e) The repository shall maintain administrative records 

that document approved scientific, educational, 

and religious uses of the collection.

Attachment E to the Draft Programmatic Agreement for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program
17

Appendix A

FEDERAL LAWS, REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended.

 36 CFR Part 800 Protection of Historic Properties

 36 CFR Part 60 National Register of Historic Places

 36 CFR Part 61 Procedures for Approved State and Local 

Government Historic Preservation Programs

 36 CFR Part 79 Curation of Federally Owned and 

Administered Archaeological Collections

 Archaeology and Historic Preservation: Secretary of Interior’s 

Standards and Guidelines

Department of Transportation Act of 1966

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

Archaeology and Historic Preservation Act of 1974

Archaeological Resource Protection Act of 1979

434 CFR Part 7 Protection of Archaeological Resources: 

Uniform Regulations

Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1987

Abandoned Shipwreck Act Guidelines

Native American Grave and Repatriation Act of 1990

NEW YORK STATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS

State Historic Preservation Act- Article 14 of Parks, Recreation 

and Historic Preservation Law

 9 NYCRR Part 426 Authority and Purpose

 9 NYCRR Part 427 State Register of Historic Places

 9 NYCRR Part 428 State Agency Activities Affecting Historic 

and Cultural Properties

State Environmental Quality Review Act • Article 8 of

Environmental Conservation Law

6 NYCRR Part 617 Sate Environmental Quality Review 

 The SEQR Handbook (1992 edition)

PERTINENT GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS AND “HOW TO”

MATERIALS

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

 The Treatment of Archaeological Properties

Section 106 step-by-step.

U. S. Department of the Interior

Technical Brief No.11 Legal Background of Archaeological

Resource Protection

National Register Bulletins

#12 Definition of National Register Boundaries for 

Archaeological Properties

 #15 How to Apply the National Criteria for Evaluation

 #16A How to Complete National Register Registration Forms

 #16B How to Complete National Register Multiple Property 

Documentation Form

 #29 Guidelines for Restricting Information About Historic 

and Prehistoric Resources

 #36 Evaluating and Registering Historical Archaeology Sites 

and Districts

 #38 Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional 

Cultural Properties

 #41 Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Cemeteries 

and Burial Places

 #43 Defining Boundaries for National Register Properties

To obtain copies and or updated versions of the above documents, 

please address your request to the relevant agencies listed below.

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 809

Washington, DC 20004

National Register of Historic Places

National Park Service

U.S. Dept. of Interior

P.O. Box 37127

Washington, DC 20013-7127

Archaeological Assistance Division

National Park Service

U.S. Dept. of Interior

P.O. Box 37127

Washington, DC 20013-7127

New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic

Preservation

Historic Preservation Field Services Bureau

Peebles Island

P.O. Beet 189

Waterford, NY 12188-0189

Phone 518-237-8643

New York State Museum

Cultural Education Center

Empire State Plaza

Albany, NY 12230

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

50 Wolf Road

Albany, NY 12233

Attachment E to the Draft Programmatic Agreement for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program
18

Appendix B

NYAC BURIAL RESOLUTION

15 September 1972

Whereas, the Native Americans of New York State regard the

disturbance of their burial's in the ground as disrespectful to their 

dead; and

Whereas, the New York Archaeological Council, the

representatives of the majority of the professional archaeologists 

working in New York State recognizes that the same legal and 

ethical treatment should be accorded all human burials irrespective 

of racial or ethic origins; and

Whereas, NYAC recognizes that despite our position the 

disturbance of burials by others is and will be a reality; therefore,

Resolved,

1) That the New York Archaeological Council 

urges a moratorium on planned burial excavation 

of Indian skeletons in New York State until such 

time as public opinion regards the recovery of 

skeletal data as a scientific endeavor irrespective 

of racial or ethnic identity,

2) That we oppose the excavation of burials for teaching 

purposes as pedagogically unnecessary and scientifically 

destructive, 

3) That we agree in the future to reburial of 

Indian skeletons in a manner and at a time 

prescribed by the Native Americans whenever 

burials are chance encounters during

archaeological excavations or other earth moving 

activities,

4)That we request the opportunity to study these skeletons 

for their scientific and historic significance before reburial, 

and

5)That when a burial ground is being disturbed by untrained 

individuals, a committee of local Native Americans and

archaeologists should jointly plan the salvage of information 

and the preservation of remains.

Appendix C

NYAC CODE OF ETHICS AND PRACTICE

Archaeology is a profession, and the privilege of professional

practice requires professional morality and professional

responsibility, as well as professional competence, on the part of

each practitioner.

A. The Archaeologist’s responsibility to the Public:

(1) An archaeologist shall:

a. recognize a commitment to present archaeology and 

its research results to the public in a responsible manner;

b. actively support conservation of the archaeological 

resource base;

c. be sensitive to, and respect the legitimate concerns of, 

groups whose cultural histories are the subjects of

archaeological investigations;

d. avoid and discourage exaggerated, misleading, or 

unwarranted statements about archaeological matters that 

might induce others to engage in unethical or illegal 

activity;

e. support and comply with the terms of the UNESCO 

Convention on the means of prohibiting and preventing 

the illicit import, export, and transfer of ownership of 

cultural property.

(2) An archaeologist shall not:

a. engage in any illegal or unethical conduct involving 

archaeologist matters or knowingly permit the use of

his/her name in support of any illegal or unethical activity 

involving archaeological matters;

b. give a professional opinion, make a public report, or 

give legal testimony involving archaeological matters

without being as thoroughly informed as might

reasonably be expected;

c. engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 

deceit, or misrepresentation about archaeological matters;

d. undertake any research that affects the archaeological 

resource base for which he/she is not qualified.

B. The Archaeologist’s Responsibility to Her/His Colleagues:

(1) An archaeologist shall:

a. give appropriate credit for work done by others

b. keep informed and knowledgeable about

developments in her/his field or fields of specialization;

c. accurately, and without undue delay, prepare and

properly disseminate a description of research done and 

its results;

d. communicate and cooperate with colleagues having 

common professional interests;

e. give due respect to colleagues’ interest in, and right 

to, inform about, sites, areas, collections, or data where 

Attachment E to the Draft Programmatic Agreement for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program
19

there is mu tual active or potentially active research

concern;

f. know and comply with all laws applicable to her/his 

archaeological research, as well as with any relevant 

procedures promulgated by duly constituted professional 

organizations;

g. report knowledge of violations of this Code to proper 

authorities.

(2) An archaeologist shall not:

a. falsely or maliciously attempt to injure the reputation 

of another archaeologist;

b. commit plagiarism in oral or written communication;

c. undertake research that affects the archaeological 

resource base unless reasonably prompt, appropriate

analysis and reporting can be expected;

d. refuse a reasonable request from a qualified

colleague for research data.

C. The Archaeologist’s Responsibility to Employers and Clients:

(1) An archaeologist shall:

a. respect the interests of her/his employer or client, so 

far as is consistent with the public welfare and this Code of 

Standards.

b. Refuse to comply with any request or demand of an 

employer or client which conflicts with the Code or Standards;

c. Recommend to employers or clients the employment 

of other archaeological or other expert consultants upon

encountered archaeological problems beyond her/his

competence;

d. Exercise reasonable care to prevent her/his

employees, colleagues, associates and others whose services 

are utilized by her/him from revealing or using confidential 

information. Confidential Information means information of a 

non-archaeological nature gained in the coarse of employment 

which the employer or client has requested be held inviolate, 

or the disclosure of which would be embarrassing or would be 

likely to be detrimental to the employer or client. Information 

ceases to be confidential when the employer or client so 

indicates or when such information becomes publicly known.

(2) An archaeologist shall not:

a. reveal confidential information, unless required by

law;

b. use confidential information to the disadvantage of

the client or employer; or

c. use confidential information for the advantage of

herself/himself or a third person, unless the client

consents after full disclosure;

d. accept compensation or anything of value for

recommending the employment of another

archaeologist or other person, unless such

compensation or thing of value is fully disclosed to

the potential employer or client;

e. recommend or participate in any research which

does not comply with the requirements of the SOPA

Standards of Research Performance

Appendix D

GLOSSARY

Adverse impact: A damaging Change to the quality of the cultural

resource's significant characteristics. An adverse impact will 

result in the loss of important information.

Archaeological resources: The subsurface remains of buildings, 

fireplaces. storage pits, habitation areas, and other features of past 

human activity. Investigating archaeological resources requires the 

use of a specialized set of techniques and methods for extracting 

the maximum information from the ground. Archaeological

resources can be either prehistoric or historic in origin.

Archaeological sites: One type of cultural resource, unique in 

That they are the only way to learn about people who kept no 

written records. They also can be used to confirm, correct, and 

expand upon the written records left by our ancestors.

Archaeology: A set of methods and techniques designed to

recover important information about the life-ways of past peoples 

and cultures from the remains they left in the ground.

Artifact: See Material remains.

Collection: Any material remains that are excavated or removed 

during a survey, excavation or other study of a prehistoric or 

historic resource, and associated records that are prepared or

assembled in connection with the survey, excavation, or other 

study.

Cultural resources: The collective evidence of the past activities 

and accomplishments of people. They include buildings. objects, 

features, locations, and structures with scientific, historic, and 

cultural value.

Extant resources: Buildings or structures which are still standing 

in much the same form as when they were first constructed.

Historic houses, bridges, and farmsteads are examples.

Feature: Intact evidence of cultural activity, typically in the form 

of hearths, pits. cisterns, privies, wells, postmolds, or other

intentional, permanent alterations of the ground surface.

Historic property: Any building, structure, object. district, place, 

site, or area significant in the history, architecture, archaeology, or 

culture of the State of New York, its communities, or the Nation.

Impact: Any Change, whether good or bad, in the quality of a 

cultural resource's significant historic, architectural, or

archaeological characteristics.

Impact mitigation: A course of action, which lessens the harm 

that will be inflicted upon a cultural resource. It may include 

work restrictions, repair, restoration, documentation, the 

installation of a protective covering, or the planned removal of a 

Attachment E to the Draft Programmatic Agreement for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program
20

resource. In the case of archaeological sites, the latter typically 

involves full-scale excavations.

Material remains: Objects, specimens and other physical

evidence that are excavated or removed in connection with efforts 

to locate, evaluate, document, study, preserve or recover a

prehistoric or historic resource.

National Register of Historic Places: The nation's official list of 

historic, architectural, archaeological, and cultural resources

worthy of preservation. The Register contains individual sites and 

historic districts of national, state, or local significance. The 

Register is maintained by the United States Department of the

Interior.

NYAC: New York Archaeological Council, a not-for-profit 

association of professional archaeologists with an interest in New 

York State archaeology.

Prehistoric/historic resources: Prehistoric resources date to the 

time before written records for a specific area, while historic 

resources are those dating to the time or written records. In North 

America, the time of written records began about A.D. 1500 with 

the arrival of European explorers. However, some parts of the

country were not visited by outsiders until much later. 

Reviewe r: Anyone who reads, examines, or studies the report for a 

lead agency. Municipality, citizen group, university, or similar

body in order to evaluate the cultural resource investigations

completed, the results, and the recommendations.

SHPO: State Historic Preservation Officer, who is an appointed 

official responsible for administering the National Historic

Preservation Act (NHPA) within a state government or

jurisdiction.

Significant Property: A cultural resource that meets the criteria of 

the State or National Register of Historic Places.

Attachment E to the Draft Programmatic Agreement for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program
21

INDEX

A

alternative methods, 3

analysis, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21

arbitrary excavation levels, 7

artifact catalog, 4

artifact clustering, 6

artifact locations, 3, 5

atlases, 1 

avoidance, 3, 4, 7, 8, 14

B

background information, 1

background research, 1

boundaries, 3, 4, 5, 6, 12, 13, 14

C

carbon samples, 7

cell, 6

climate, 1, 11

collection cell, 6

collections, 4, 8, 9, 11, 12, 16, 17, 20 

comparative data, 1

concentrations, 3, 5, 6 

consultation, 3, 7, 8, 10, 11

context, 4, 5, 12, 14

criteria, 4, 5, 7, 14, 16, 22

cultural setting, 1, 2

curation, 4, 8, 9, 12, 14, 16

D

data recovery, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 12, 14

data recovery plan, 4, 7, 8, 9, 14

density, 2, 6, 12

disseminate, 9, 20

distribution, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12

disturbance, 3, 10, 11, 20 

disturbances, 1, 2 

documentary research, 5

documentation, 3, 8, 19

E

eligibility, 4, 5, 6, 7, 14, 15

eligible, 4, 8, 11

environment, 1, 2, 10

environmental/physical setting, 1, 2

excavation units, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13

F

fauna, 1, 11

faunal, 2, 9, 12 

features, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 21 

field methodology, 1

field visit, 2, 11

field-testing procedures, 2

flood-plain, 6 

flora, 1, 11

Attachment E to the Draft Programmatic Agreement for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program
22

floral, 2, 9, 12

flotation, 8

foundation, 6, 7 

future analysis, 7

G

geology, 1, 11

geomorphology, 1, 11 

H

human burials, 8, 10, 20 

human remains, 10

hydrology, 1, 11

I

impact, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 14, 21

Informant, 2

integrity, 2, 4, 6, 14, 16, 17

intervals, 3, 5, 6, 12

isolated, 3, 6

L

laboratory procedures, 9, 12

M

management summary, 10 

manuscripts, 1, 15

map, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13 

maps, 1, 3, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16

measurements, 3, 7, 13

minimum diameter, 3

mitigation, 0, 8

monitoring, 8, 9, 16, 17

N

National Register, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 15, 19, 22

non-disclosure statement, 10

NRHP, 4, 11

P

permanent reference points, 9

photography, 3

physiography, 1, 11

plowed, 3, 5, 12

plowzone, 3, 5, 6, 7, 12

predictions, 1, 2

previous surveys, 1

prior disturbance, 2

project size, 1, 10

publications, 9

R

radiocarbon, 6, 8, 12, 13

raw materials, 2

recommendations, 3, 4, 7, 10, 14, 22 

remote sensing, 2, 6, 7, 12, 15

research design, 1, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14

research questions, 4, 5, 8, 11, 13, 14

research staff, 11

review agency, 2, 3, 7

S

samples, 6, 7, 8, 13, 15, 17

sampling, 3, 7, 9, 12

screened, 3, 6

Secretary of the Interior's Standards, 8, 16

sensitivity assessment, 1, 2, 11

shovel testing, 2, 3, 5

shovel-testing, 3, 6 

SHPO, 2, 7, 8, 10, 11, 22

site inventories, 1 

site protection, 7

site significance, 4, 7

slide talks, 9

slope, 3, 12

soil samples, 7 

soils

soil, 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 11 

strata, 3, 8

stratigraphic profiles, 3, 9

stratigraphy, 4, 5

stripping, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13

sub-plowzone, 5, 6, 12

subsurface, 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 21

subsurface testing, 2, 6

supplemental monitoring, 8

surface survey, 2, 3, 5, 6

surface surveys, 3, 5 

survey strategies, 3, 12

systematic surface investigation, 3

T

test unit, 6, 12

test units, 3, 4, 6, 12, 13

Attachment E to the Draft Programmatic Agreement for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program
APPENDIX E

DEPARTENT OF TRANSPORATION 

CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY CHECKLIST

FORM A

Attachment E to the Draft Programmatic Agreement for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program
FORM A - CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY CHECKLIST Today's Date _______

SURVEY_____ ADDENDUM ___ SITE EXAM____ DATA RECOVERY PLAN___ DATA RECOVERY__

HABS/HAER ___ Indicate HABS/HAER Level I, II, III ________________ 

IS THIS A ROLL-OVER PROJECT (Y/N) ____ IF YES, DATE PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED ________ 

TYPE OF SURVEY NEEDED:

ARCHEOLOGICAL:__ ARCHITECTURAL:__ BOTH: __ HISTORIC SETTING ANALYSIS ONLY: __

ANY PREVIOUS SURVEYS (Y/N) _____ IF YES, SURVEY DATE _______P.R. # _______

PIN (must have nine digits): FUNDING: FEDERAL ____ STATE ____

UNIQUE SITE NUMBER(S) (USN):

PROJECT BOUNDARIES: ROUTE: __ (give local name, e.g. CR18/Main St.) 

FROM: TO: 

MINOR CIVIL DIVISION(S) & COUNTY:

PROJECT DESCRIPTION & PROPOSED WORK: (include ROW acquisition & borrow, on-site detours, staging 

and temporary access areas) _____________________________________________

ESTIMATED LENGTH: ESTIMATED WIDTH: (show impact area on project map)

ESTIMATED NUMBER OF BUILDINGS IN PROJECT AREA: ____________ 

ESTIMATED NUMBER OF BUILDINGS TO BE ACQUIRED/REMOVED __________

BRIDGE(S) - BIN, Year Built & Type: 

________________________________________________________________________ 

RESULTS OF 2002 HISTORIC BRIDGE INVENTORY: Eligible__ Not Eligible __ Nat’l Register Listed__ Unevaluated__

NYSDOT Bridge Inventory Form Needed for Unevaluated Bridge(s):(Y/N) __

FEDERAL PERMITS REQUIRED: (include Nationwide) (Y/N)_____

DATE SURVEY NEEDED BY: (MONTH/YEAR)

PRESENT PROJECT STAGE: IPP____ SCOPING____ DESIGN____ SCHEDULED DESIGN 

APPROVAL ____

USGS QUAD OR DOT PLANIMETRIC (location map) MAP INCLUDED: (Y/N) ____

(include quad name and show project survey limits on map) ELECTRONIC MAPS AVAILABLE (Y/N) 

_____

TWO COPIES OF RECENT PLANS WITH PROJECT BOUNDARIES: (Y/N) ___ (Show cultural 

resource survey limits on plans)

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: 

REGIONAL CONTACT: TELEPHONE: EMAIL:

TRIBAL CONTACT:

Form A Package: 4(+) Form A’s - (2 SED, 1 SHPO, 1 EAB, + Tribal Contact(s) as applicable

 4(+) Location Maps - (2 SED, 1 SHPO, 1 EAB, + Tribal Contact(s) as applicable

 2 Project Plans - (SED)

 2 WinBolts Screen - (SED)

 4(+) Screening Information - (2 SED, 1 SHPO, 1 EAB, + Tribal Contact(s) as applicable 

(revised 1/04)

Attachment E to the Draft Programmatic Agreement for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program
APPENDIX F

NEW YORK STATE PREHISTORIC SITE INVENTORY FORM

NEW YORK STATE HISTORIC SITE INVENTORY FORM

NEW YORK STATE HISTORIC RESOURCE INVENTORY FORM 

NEW YORK STATE HISTORIC DISTRICT FORM WITH INSTRUCTIONS

HISTORIC SETTING ANALYSIS GUIDANCE FOR

NYSDOT PROJECTS

NEW YORK STATE BRIDGE INVENTORY FORM

AND GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATING HISTORIC BRIDGES

Attachment E to the Draft Programmatic Agreement for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program
NEW YORK STATE PREHISTORIC SITE INVENTORY FORM

For Office Use Only – Site Identifier: _____________________________________

Project Identifier: Date: 

Name : Phone: (518) 473-1503

Address: Room 3122 Cultural Education Center

Albany, NY 12230

 

Organization (if any): New York State Museum

1. Site Identifier(s): 

2. County: 

City: 

Township: 

Incorporated Village: 

Unincorporated Village or Hamlet: 

3. Present Owner: 

Address: 

 

 

4. Site Description (check all appropriate categories):

 Stray find Cave/Rock shelter Workshop

 Pictograph Quarry Mound

 Burial Shell midden Village

 Surface evidence Camp Material in plow zone

 Material below plow zone Buried Evidence Intact occupation floor

 Single Component Multi-component Stratified

Site:

 Evidence of features 

 Under cultivation Never cultivated Previously cultivated

 Pastureland Woodland Floodplain

Location:

 Upland Sustaining erosion 

Soil Drainage: Excellent Good Fair Poor

Slope: Flat Gentle Moderate Steep

Distance to nearest water from site (approx.): 

Elevation: 

5. Site Investigation (append additional sheets if necessary):

Surface Testing Date(s): 

 Site Map (Submit with form*)

 Collection

Subsurface Testing Date(s): 

Testing: Shovel Coring Other: 

Unit size: 

Number of Units: (Submit plan of unit with form)

Investigator: 

Manuscript or published report(s) (reference fully): 

Present repository of materials: New York State Museum

* Submission should be 8 1⁄2” by 11” if feasible

Attachment E to the Draft Programmatic Agreement for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program
6. Components(s) (Cultural affiliation and dates): 

7. List of material remains (be as specific as possible in identifying object and material): 

If historic materials are evident, check here and fill out historic site form. 

8. Map References: Map or maps showing exact location and extent of site must accompany this form and must be identified

 by source and date. Keep this information to 81⁄2” by 11” if possible. 

USGS 7 1⁄2 Minute Series Quad. Name: 

For Office Use Only – UTM Coordinates: ____________________________

9. Photography (optional for environmental impact survey): Please submit 5” by 7” black and white print(s) showing the current 

state of the site. Provide a label for the print(s) on a separate sheet. 

Attachment E to the Draft Programmatic Agreement for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program
NEW YORK STATE HISTORIC SITE INVENTORY FORM

For Office Use Only? Site Identifier _____________________________________

 

Project Identifier: Date: _____________________________

Your Name: ________________________________ Phone: ____________________________

Address: 

 

 

Organization (if any): __________________________________________________________________

1. Site Identifier(s): ____________________________ 

2. County: ___________________________________ 

One of following ? City: 

 Township: 

 Incorporated Village: 

 Unincorporated Village or Hamlet: 

 

3. Present Owner: ______________________________ 

Address: ____________________________________

 

 

4. Site Description (check all appropriate categories):

Structure/site: 

Superstructure: complete partial collapsed not evident___ 

Foundation: above below (ground level) not evident____ 

Structural subdivisions apparent___Only surface traces visible ___Buried traces___Undetected ____ 

List construction materials (be as specific as possible): 

Grounds: Under cultivation Sustaining erosion Woodland Upland ___ 

 Never cultivated Previously cultivated Floodplain ____ Pastureland___ 

Drainage: excellent good___ fair poor ____ 

Slope: flat gentle moderate steep .

Distance to nearest water from site (approx.): m ( ft) 

Elevation: m ( ft). 

5. Site Investigation (append additional sheets, if necessary): 

Surface Testing date(s): 

Site Map (Submit with form*): 

 Collection: 

Subsurface Testing date(s) : 

Testing: shovel coring other unit size___________ 

Number of units (Submit plan of units with form*)

Excavation: unit sizes no. of units (Submit plan of units with form*)

* Submission should be 8"x ll", if feasible

Investigator: 

Manuscript or published report(s)(reference fully): 

Present repository of materials: 

6. Site inventory: 

a. Date constructed or occupation period: 

b. Previous owners, if known: 

c. Modifications, if known: 

(append additional sheets, if necessary)

Attachment E to the Draft Programmatic Agreement for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program
Page 2

7. Site documentation: (append additional sheets, if necessary): 

a. Historic map references

1) Name Date Source . 

Present location of original, if known . 

b. Representation in existing photography:

 1) Photo date Where located 

 2) Photo date Where located 

 

Primary and secondary source documentation (reference 

fully):__________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

d. Persons with memory of site:

 1) Name___________________________ Address__________________________________ 

 2) Name ___________________________ Address _________________________________ 

8. List of material remains other than those used in construction (be as specific as possible in identifying object and material): 

If prehistoric materials are evident, check here and fill out prehistoric site form. 

9. Map References: Map or maps showing exact location and extent of site must accompany this form and must be identified by 

source and date. Keep this information to 81/2 by 11 inches if possible.

USGS 7.5 Minute Series Quad Name:________________________________________

For Office Use Only--UTM Coordinates: _____________________________________ 

10. Photography (optional for environmental impact survey):

Please submit a 5"x 7" black and white print(s) showing the current state of the site. Provide a label for the print(s) on a separate 

sheet.

Attachment E to the Draft Programmatic Agreement for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program
OFFICE USE ONLY

USN: 

HISTORIC RESOURCE INVENTORY FORM

For NYSDOT Projects 

(NYS Education Department Cultural Resources Survey Program Work Scope Specifications, Section I.C. (January 1998)

 NYS OFFICE OF PARKS, RECREATION

 & HISTORIC PRESERVATION

 P.O. BOX 189, WATERFORD, NY 12188

 (518) 237-8643

IDENTIFICATION 

Property name (if any) 

Address or Street Location ____________________________________________ Rural Fire Number __________________________

County Town/City Village/Hamlet: 

Original use Current use 

Architect/Builder, if known Construction Date*

DESCRIPTION

Please check those that are applicable 

Exterior Walls: G wood clapboard G wood shingle G vertical boards G plywood G stone

G brick G poured concrete G concrete block G vinyl siding G aluminum siding

G cement-asbestos 

G other: ____________________________________________________________________

Roof: G asphalt, shingle G asphalt, roll G wood shingle G metal G slate

Foundation: G stone G brick G poured concrete G concrete block

Alterations: Date(s)(if known): 

Condition: G excellent G good G fair G deteriorated

Associated Building: G garage G silo G privy G shed G barns

G carriage house G other _________________________________________________________________________________

Landscape Features: G gardens G pond G mature trees G slate sidewalks

G fountain G hitching post G carriage steps G walls G historic marker (describe narrative)

G well G mile post G monument/sculpture 

G other ____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Prepared by: Address 

Telephone: Email Date 

PIN: ______________________________________ Organization: _________________________________ 

Attachment E to the Draft Programmatic Agreement for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program
Building Surroundings: G open land G woodland G scattered buildings G densely built-up

G commercial G industrial G residential G agricultural

G other ___________________________________________________________________________________________________

Photos:

Provide clear, original color photographs of the property recommended for National Register eligibility. Submitted views should represent 

the property as a whole and its relationship to the road. Include general setting, outbuildings and landscape features. 

Maps:

Maps included in the survey report will indicate the location of the property in relationship to streets, intersections or other widely recognized features so 

that the property can be accurately identified. Photo angles and location of the properties will be shown on these maps.

Narrative Description of Property: Briefly describe the property’s location (e.g., north side of NY 17, west of Jones Road); a general description of the 

building, structure or feature including such items as architectural style (if known), number of stories, type and shape of roof (flat, gabled, mansard, shed 

or other), and materials. Describe in detail the property’s setting and contributing landscape features. (use additional space as needed)

Narrative Description of National Register Eligibility: Briefly describe those characteristics by which this property meets the National Register 

eligibility criteria. The narrative should support the eligibility recommendation, citing all specific National Register criteria that apply: Associative Value

(Criteria A & B): Properties significant for their association in or linkage to events (Criterion A) or persons (Criterion B) important in the past. Design or 

Construction value (Criterion C): (use additional space as needed)

*Sources: Include sources that document/support the construction date along with the National Register eligibility recommendations. This would 

include architectural guidebooks, interviews, articles, county histories, newspapers, oral histories, building cornerstones, previous Cultural Resource 

Survey reports, and primary sources (deeds, census records).

Historic Maps: Cite historic maps that document the property’s history.

Other Sources: 

Attachment E to the Draft Programmatic Agreement for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program
OFFICE USE ONLY

USN: 

HISTORIC DISTRICT INVENTORY FORM

For NYSDOT Projects 

New York State Education Department Cultural Resources Survey Program Work Scope Specifications

NYS OFFICE OF PARKS, RECREATION

& HISTORIC PRESERVATION

P.O. BOX 189, WATERFORD, NY 12188

(518) 237-8643

IDENTIFICATION 

Name of District:_________________________________________________________________________________________

Street / Route ___________________________________________________________________________________________

County:_________________________Town/City:__________________________Village/Hamlet:________________________

DESCRIPTION 

Describe the location, physical characteristics (boundaries, topography, street pattern, building setback), building/property characteristics (function, 

dates of construction, styles, materials) and landscape (trees, sidewalks, street lamps, hitching posts, etc.). Identify whether existing street and 

landscape features reflect historic improvements, based on historic photographs, postcards, views, and maps.

Prepared by: Address 

Telephone: Email Date 

PIN: ______________________________________ Organization: _________________________________ 

Attachment E to the Draft Programmatic Agreement for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program
LIST OF INDIVIDUAL PROPERTIES

List and briefly describe each property in the historic district, including approximate date of construction, architectural style, and whether contributing or non

contributing. Include landscape features that contribute to the district as a whole but are not necessarily associated with individual properties.

SIGNIFICANCE

Discuss how the historic district meets the National Register eligibility criteria. How does the district fit within the historic context and reflect historic 

events of the city/village/town (Criterion A)? Does the district have association with people important to the history of the city/village/town (Criterion 

B)? Are properties typical or outstanding examples of archite cture/design for their respective era, and how do landscape features contribute (Criterion 

C)? 

Period of significance ____________________________ National Register Criterion/ Criteria_____________________________

PHOTOS

Provide clear, original color photographs of each contributing property within the historic district. Submitted views should represent each property as a 

whole and its relationship to the street. Include general setting, outbuildings and landscape features. Streetscape views should capture significant 

physical characteristics of the district. 

MAPS

Provide a quadrangle map or tax map showing the historic district location and boundaries. Project maps included in the survey report will more 

specifically indicate the locations of individual properties in relationship to streets, intersections or other widely recognized features. Photo angles will be 

shown on these maps.

SOURCES Typical sources include county and town histories, historic maps and images, historian interviews, previous Cultural Resource Survey 

Reports and Building Structure Inventories, architecture guide books and census records.

Attachment E to the Draft Programmatic Agreement for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program
HISTORIC SETTING ANALYSIS GUIDANCE FOR NYSDOT PROJECTS

Following the principles of Context Sensitive Solutions, the design approach for projects in historic districts should incorporate an 

understanding of the physical features that define and contribute to the significance of the district. This approach involves both 

preservation, to the extent possible, of existing historic resources, and creation of new features compatible with the historic character of 

the project area. 

In order to avoid creating a false sense of history, the project design must reference the documented historic context of the specific time 

and place. Knowledge of site-specific context is achieved through focused research that includes detailed documentation and analysis of 

historic maps, local records, period illustrations, and historic photographs. This process will provide project designers with the necessary 

background to guide project development toward a context sensitive design. 

This guidance is to be used by the SED when proposing an eligible architectural district or individual properties with large tracts of land. 

It can also be applied when requested by the Regional Cultural Resource Coordinator (CRC) for a known eligible or listed district. 

Research Objectives: 

? Identify and support contributing/non-contributing features.

? Look at historic maps and photographs to document the evolution of the town. 

? What did the town look like at the turn of the century, in the 1920's and 1950's? 

? Observe the town today. What historic features remain? 

? What historic features have been lost? 

? What historic features define the streetscape? 

? Consider spatial relationships - open space, setback & density of buildings, scale.

? Describe the changes in setting, roadside features and streetscape elements.

? Determine & identify period(s) of significance for proposed district.

? Take photographic views showing current and historic views at same location.

Potential Sources:

? Maps – Sanborn Fire Insurance maps, DOT As-Built plans, Historic Maps and Atlases in chronological sequence (i.e. change 

over time) 

? Images - Postcards, Photographs, Newspapers, Lithographs, Birds Eye Views, 19th century maps with inset views of prominent 

buildings and structures

? Documents – City/ village council or board minutes, Ordinances, Newspapers

Elements of Historic Setting:

? Street Widening/Narrowing

? Traffic Islands

? Street Width, Alignment and Intersection Configuration

? Building Setback and Density

? Surface Treatments - brick, cobblestone, bluestone, pavers

? Trees – planting scheme, species

? Curb Lines - extension, parking areas, curb material

? Street Lights - types, locations

? Street Furniture - benches, fountains, monuments, statues, clocks

? Traffic Islands

? Fences/ Walls - construction and material type, location

? Open Spaces - spatial relationship

? Walkways/ Crosswalks/ Sidewalks 

? Boulevards, Planted Medians

? Driveways, Alleys

? Traffic Signals

? Signs & Street Markers

? Dates & Names Stamped in Concrete

? Awnings

Attachment E to the Draft Programmatic Agreement for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program
Form A:

Historic Setting Analysis should be incorporated in the development of proposed National Register eligible districts by the SED. In 

addition, the CRC may request this analysis. The FORM A has been revised to include under TYPE OF SURVEY NEEDED a Historic 

Setting Analysis check off box to show this particular request. The CRC will provide a detailed description of proposed work (i.e. 

proposed intersection reconfiguring, sidewalk installation, tree planting, street widening or narrowing). The CRC should be contacted 

with questions about the project. 

Attachment E to the Draft Programmatic Agreement for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program
BRIDGE INVENTORY FORM 

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

DATE: ________________________ PIN:________________________BIN:__________________ 

 

PREPARER/AFFILIATION:____________________________________________________________ 

EVALUATION APPLYING METHODOLOGY OF NYSDOT 2002 HISTORIC BRIDGE INVENTORY

National Register Eligible _____ National Register Criteria ____________________ Not Eligible ____ 

IDENTIFICATION 

1. BRIDGE NAME(S): (if known) _____________________________________________________

2. TOWN/CITY/VILLAGE (MCD): ______________________HAMLET:________________________ 

3. COUNTY:________________________________________________________________________

4. FEATURE CARRIED (street, route no., railroad): _________________________________________ 

5. FEATURE CROSSED (river, highway, railroad): __________________________________________

6. YEAR BUILT: ________________________

DESCRIPTION

 

7. BRIDGE TYPE: ____________________________________________________________________

7a. Number of Spans: ______________ 7b. Length of Span(s): ________________________________

8. STRUCTURAL MATERIAL: a. timber ___ b. stone__ c. steel __ d. concrete __e. cast/ wrought iron _f. other ___ 

8a. Abutment Material: concrete__ stone faced__ laid-up stone ___ other______________________________

 

9. PHOTOS: (see attached)

 

10. INTEGRITY: a. list major alterations and dates (if known): 

b. previous use ____________________ c. moved__ if so, when? ______________

11. RELATED BUILDINGS AND PROPERTY (check more than one if necessary): a. power house __ b. railroad station __ c. 

bridge operators house __ d. landscape features (specify) (i.e. stone walls, light standards) __________________________ e. 

other ______________________ 

 

12. BRIDGE SURROUNDINGS (check more than one if necessary): a. open land__ b. woodland__ c. scattered buildings__ 

d. densely built-up__ e. commercial__ f. industrial__ g. residential__ h. potentially eligible historic district ____ i. other___

 

13. OTHER NOTABLE BRIDGE FEATURES (e.g. aesthetic treatment, multiple spans, cantilevered): 

 

 

14. HISTORIC IMPORTANCE/ ASSOCIATION (include plate information): Engineer or builder __________________

 

 

15. LOCATION MAP: (see attached) 

Attachment E to the Draft Programmatic Agreement for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATING HISTORIC BRIDGES

September 2002

The recently completed statewide Historic Bridge Inventory resulted in evaluations of National Register eligibility for over 6,000 bridges 

built prior to 1961. During the early phase of the project, a group of bridges on the 5-Year Capital Program was identified and excluded 

from the inventory. Since that time, many of these bridges were individually evaluated; however other bridges that were subsequently 

taken off the program remain unevaluated. Additional bridges may be unevaluated due to an excluded owner (e.g. railroad), or if 

identified by the Historic Bridge Database under exclusion code 21: needs individual assessment. 

These guidelines summarize procedures to apply the methodology developed under the Historic Bridge Inventory for an evaluation of 

National Register eligibility. The methodology for evaluation within the context of bridge type and sub-group is explained in greater 

detail in the report, Evaluation of National Register Eligibility (January 2002).

E = Consider eligible unless there is a significant integrity problem

COLLECT DATA FOR HISTORIC BRIDGE

< Identify Unevaluated bridge (WinBolts Historic card, Historic Determination field records eligibility status; bridges with 

Exclusion Codes 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 19, and 20 do not require separate evaluation

< Gather data from WinBolts: Year built, bridge type, span length, material, etc. are found on Identification, Structural Details, and 

Spans Inventory cards)

< Conduct field investigation as part of Cultural Resources Screening or Survey

< Photograph bridge; note historic integrity, setting, bridge plate information

ANALYZE BRIDGE WITHIN SUBGROUP

Identify Bridge Type / Subgroup and Year Built

Arch Bridges

< Concrete Arches (deck and half-through)

< Masonry - E 

< Steel - E

Beam and Girder Bridges 

< Jack arches

Plate girders 

< Rigid frames

< Rolled beams

< Slabs

< T-Beams

< Timber beams

Movable Bridges

< Bascule - E

< Lift - E

< Retractile - E

< Swing - E

Truss Bridges

< Common: Pratt and Warren

< Uncommon - E: Baltimore, Bowstring Arch, Camelback, King Post, Lenticular, Parker, Pennsylvania, Unusual Configurations 

Suspension Bridges - E

Does the bridg e represent a rare or uncommon type?

The following sub-types are relatively rare, and should be considered eligible unless they have a significant integrity problem: 

< Open spandrel concrete deck arch - E

< Half-through concrete arch - E

< Steel arch - E

< Movable - E

< Suspension - E

< Uncommon truss types - E

Attachment E to the Draft Programmatic Agreement for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program
Assess Historic Integrity 

To be eligible, a bridge must have sufficient historic integrity to convey its particular significance. An uncommon bridge type or rare 

surviving example of a type may have alterations and still be eligible, provided that the bridge retains the essential characteristics that 

convey its historic identity (e.g. 19th century stone arch; King Post Truss). Alterations that may affect the integrity of historic bridges 

include:

< replacement of original rail or parapet

< replacement of main structural members

< adding non-original, main structural members

< widening a bridge with new structural members

< adding a concrete veneer to the original masonry superstructure

< in-filling the underside of an arch rib or girder

< removing main members that were integral to the superstructure

< removing the superstructure

< lengthening a superstructure with additional spans

Were bridge plans standardized?

For bridge types associated with standardized plans, determine if the bridge pre-dates the standardization period. Standardized plans were 

developed for the following bridge types:

< Concrete arch

Standardized plans for concrete arch bridges were developed ca. 1911 and came into widespread use in 1926. Filled 

spandrel deck arches built before 1911 (prior to standardization) or ca. 1911-26 (the early period of standardization) 

should be considered eligible unless they have a significant integrity problem. Post-1925 filled spandrel deck arches 

would not be eligible unless they possess special features.

Due to their relatively small numbers, both pre- and post-standardized open spandrel deck arches and half-through 

arches would be eligible unless they have a significant integrity problem.

< Beams/ girders

< Pre-1929 Beam and Girder bridges

Following 1908, standardized plans were used with increasing frequency statewide and had taken firm hold by 1930. 

The date of standardization varies by subgroup: Jack arches 1920s; plate girders, rolled beams, and slabs, 1909; Tbeams 1910. Pre-standardized bridges that retain their historic integrity may be eligible as uncommon or innovative 

examples, or as representative of the evolution of the type. 

< Post-1929 Beam and Girder bridges 

The implementation of standardized plans resulted in a large group of bridges that vary little from each other. Due to 

the ubiquity of post-1929 beam and girder bridges, they would be not eligible unless they possess a special feature or 

warrant special consideration for the following: bridges with historical associations; bridges with high artistic value; 

box girders (standardized after 1929); cantilever spans; continuous spans; prestressed concrete T-beams. 

< Pratt and Warren trusses 

Standardization of plans for Pratt and Warren truss bridges began in 1908, and by 1926, were in widespread use 

throughout the state. As examples of pre -standardized or early standardized design, Pratt and Warren trusses built prior 

to 1926 would be eligible unless they have a significant integrity problem. Post-1925 Pratt and Warren trusses show 

little variation and are considered not eligible unless there is a significant variation, historical association, or high 

artistic value.

Does the bridge exhibit significant variations?

< multiple spans

< cantilever spans (beam and girder)

< continuous spans (beam and girder)

< prestressed concrete

Does the bridge exhibit artistic value or aesthetic treatment?

Aesthetic features may enhance a bridge’s potential for National Register eligibility. Examples of aesthetic treatments that are present in 

the bridge population include:

< decorative portal

< decorative rail or parapet

Attachment E to the Draft Programmatic Agreement for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program
< decorative panels

< masonry veneer

< decorative arch

< decorative tower or cable stays

< decorative lighting

< concrete modillions or added features

Does the bridge haven any Special Recognition factors? 

These factors may contribute to potential eligibility under National Register Criteria A-1 or A-2. 

< Historical association 

< Depression-era funding

< association with an individual, memorial, or bridge marker

< Considered historically important by local community

< town/ county historian, local historical society, preservation or ? friends? groups

< Distinctive features or trends 

< construction material such as timber or prestressed concrete

< support system such as cantilevered 

APPLY NATIONAL REGISTER CRITERIA 

< Evaluate National Register eligibility within context of subgroup 

Eligible bridges should meet one or more of the following criterion:

< A-1: associated with historic event(s) or activities

< A-2: associated with historic trends

< C-3: represents the work of a master

< C-4: possesses high artistic value

< C-5: demonstrates pattern of features common to a particular bridge type

< C-6: demonstrates individuality or variation of features within bridge type

< C-7: demonstrates evolution of a particular bridge type

<

< Consider whether the bridge may contribute to an eligible historic district

DOCUMENTATION 

< Eligible bridges: Complete NYSDOT Bridge Inventory Form

 Cultural Resources Screening - CRC should complete form; follow screening procedures

< Cultural Resources Survey - SED should complete form; include in CRS Report

< Example of Suggested Wording: Applying the methodology of the 2002 Historic Bridge Inventory, BIN 2226120 is 

eligible under National Register Criteria A-1, C-4, and C-6. Built in 1936, this multi-span, open spandrel concrete deck 

arch represents a significant variation of an uncommon bridge type. The decorative lighting and parapets represent high 

artistic values that enhance the design. The bridge is also significant for its association with historic events through 

Depression-era funding for construction.

< Not Eligible bridges: No form needed

< Cultural Resources Screening - follow screening procedures

< Cultural Resources Survey - include photograph only with other buildings / structures recommended Not Eligible

< Example of Suggested Wording: Based on an application of the methodology developed for the 2002 Historic Bridge 

Inventory, BIN 1045680 is Not Eligible. Built in 1938, this Jack Arch bridge post-dates the implementation of 

standardized plans, and lacks a significant historical association or aesthetic treatment to distinguish it from the large 

population of this type. 

SOURCES

WinBolts Historic Card / Historic Bridge Database 

Attachment E to the Draft Programmatic Agreement for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program
Evaluation of National Register Eligibility: Task C3 of the Historic Bridge Inventory and Management Plan. Prepared for the New 

York State Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration by Mead & Hunt, Inc. 

Attachment E to the Draft Programmatic Agreement for the High Speed Rail Empire Corridor Program
This page intentionally left blank. 
DRAFT PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT

HIGH SPEED RAIL EMPIRE CORRIDOR PROGRAM

ATTACHMENT F 

Properties Exempt from Evaluation

This attachment defines categories of properties that do not warrant evaluation for National 

Register eligibility, unless deemed otherwise in the professional judgment of the qualified 

professional archaeologist or architectural historian, respectively. Exempted properties do not 

require documentation. 

ARCHEOLOGICAL PROPERTIES (PRECONTACT AND HISTORIC) EXEMPT FROM 

EVALUATION

Based on an initial field survey, the following properties are exempt from further evaluation at the 

discretion of the PI: 

• Isolated non-diagnostic prehistoric artifacts consisting of fewer than three items per 100 

square meters;

• Isolated historic finds consisting of fewer than ten artifacts per 100 square meters (e.g., 

several fragments from a single glass bottle are one artifact);

• Refuse scatters less than 50 years old (scatters containing no material that can be dated 

with certainty as older than 50 years old); 

• Features known to be less than 50 years old; 

• Isolated refuse dumps and scatters over 50 years old that lack specific associations;

• Foundations and mapped locations of buildings or structures more than 50 years old with 

few or no associated artifacts or ecofacts, and with no potential for subsurface 

archeological deposits; or

• Building and structural ruins and foundations less than 50 years old. 

PIs qualified in archaeology shall apply professional judgment as to the level of identification 

effort, in consultation with consulting Native American Tribe(s) where appropriate. This 

exemption process does not include archeological sites, traditional cultural properties, or other 

cultural remains or features that may qualify as contributing elements of districts or landscapes. 

HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL PROPERTIES EXEMPT FROM EVALUATION

The following types of historic architectural properties are exempt from evaluation and 

documentation: 

1. Properties less than 50 years old at the time of the Phase I survey unless they may have 

achieved exceptional significance in accordance with NRHP Bulletin 22. 

2. Properties moved within the past 50 years unless they are among the exceptions noted in 

“Criteria Consideration B: Moved Properties” of National Register Bulletin 15. 

The historical architectural property types listed below may be exempt from evaluation and may 

not require documentation, based on the professional judgment of PIs qualified in the disciplines 

of history or architectural history. 

1 of 3 
Railroad Related Features:

• Railroad maintenance facilities, such as repair buildings and equipment storage structures 

• Railroad communication and signaling systems

• Railroad structures such as grade separations, pedestrian overcrossings and underpasses

• Railroad fencing and other right-of-way features

• Access roads for railroads

• Railroad maintenance materials (e.g., ties, track, ballast, etc.)

• Railroad grades converted to other uses, such as roads, levees, or bicycle/pedestrian paths

Recent Transportation or Pedestrian Facilities:

• Light rail systems, including shelters, benches, and platforms

• Bus shelters and benches

• Airstrips and helicopter landing pads 

• Vista points and rest stops 

• Toll booths

• Truck scales and inspection stations

• City streets, alleys, and park strips

• Sidewalks, curbs, berms, and gutters 

• Bike paths, off-road vehicle trails, equestrian trails, and hiking trails

• Parking lot and driveways

Highway and Roadside Features:

• Isolated segments or bypassed or abandoned roads 

• Curbs, gutters, and walkways 

• Highway fencing, soundwalls, guard rails, and barriers 

• Cattle crossing guards 

• Roadside, median, and interchange landscaping and associated irrigation systems 

• Street furniture and decorations 

• Signs and reflectors

• Parking meters

• Street lighting and controls

• Traffic lights and controls

• Highway operation control, maintenance, and monitoring equipment 

• Telecommunications services, including towers, poles, dishes, antennas, boxes, lines, 

cables, transformers, and transmission facilities

• Utility services, including towers, poles, boxes, pipes, lines, cables, and transformers 

• Oil and gas pipelines and associated control devices

Adjacent Features:

• Prefabicated buildings less than 50 years old not associated with permanent buildings or a 

historic district

• Fences, walls, gates, and gateposts

• Isolated rock walls and stone fences

• Telephone booths, call boxes, mailboxes, and newspaper receptacles 

2 of 3 
• Fire hydrants and alarms

• Non-Rail Markers, 

• Signs, and billboards 

• Fragments of bypassed or demolished bridges 

• Temporary roadside structures, such seasonal vendors’ stands

• Pastures, fields, crops, and orchards 

• Corrals, animal pens, and dog runs 

Movable or Minor Objects:

• Movable vehicles

• Stationary vehicles less than 50 years old or moved within the last 50 years

• Agricultural, industrial, and commercial equipment and machinery 

• Sculpture, statuary, and decorative elements less than 50 years old or moved within the 

last 50 years.

These exemptions do not apply to properties 50 years old or older that could be important, nor do 

they apply to properties that may contribute to the significance of larger historic properties such 

as districts or landscapes. 

3 of 3 
This page intentionally left blank.